The broad ax., 1922-07-08

vised Statutes of 1919, page 1908, a
cause of action survives, and that the
next of kin of the said deceased would
have a right to maintain a suit for
damages for the death of such per-
son, and that the individual, firm or
corporation who would have been liza
bic for damages to the injured person,
had death not ensued, would be liable
to the next of kin, and, under the law
should be required to respond in dam
ages to the defendant heirs at law or
next of kin of the said deceased.
The case of Louis Phillips is a suit
for the recovery of damages for in
juries inflicted upon the plaintiff al
the hands of a mob at 39th and Hal
sted streets. The plaintiff in this case
was shot in the head and his right
eye put out, and has been permanent
ly crippled as a result of the injuries
sustained by him. If this case is set
tied, the attorneys for the plaintiff
are asking $4,000.
The case of William Stewart is a
suit for the recovery of damages for
personal injuries sustained by the
plaintiff at the hands of a mob at
35th and Wabash avenue, who shot
him through the body and broke one
of his legs. The plaintiffs attorney
feels that the City should pay the
sum of $4,000 in settlement.
We desire to advise you that three
of the so-called riot cases have been
tried, and in each case the jury has
returned a verdict of guilty, and the
courts have entered judgments upon
the verdicts; one for the sum of
s., 10000, one for $3,5OOOO and one
for S5,OOO.OO.
Since our former communication to
you, the Appellate Court has passed
upon the question of the liability of
the City for a death resulting from
injuries sustained at the hands of a
mob during the so-called race riots.
In discussing the liability of the
City in the case of Barnes v. City Of
Chicago decided April 10. 1927, the
Court said:
Plaintiff in error brought an aston
against the City of Chicago predi-
Gated upon An Act to suppress mob
violence in foEce July l, 1905. (Ch.
So. pars. 537 to 542, Cahill's Stats.)
The City's demurrer to the declaration
was sustained and plaintiff elected to
stand by her narr.
THE declaration was in two
counts. The first charged an as
semblage of FIVE or more persons in
said city for the unlawful purpose of
violence to the person and
property of any one supposed to have
been guilty of a violation of the law,
and for the purpose of exercising cor
rectional and regulative powers on
any person or persons by violence
and without lawful authority, and
that said mob, composed of such per-
sons while so assembled did fall upon,
lynch, shoot, wound and kill one
John w. Simpson, the son of plain
Tiff, a single and unmarried man. who
left plaintiff, his mother and lineal
heir. who prior to his. death was de-
pendent upon him for support.
THE second count set forth the
same matters, with averments that
Simpson was a police officer, exer-
cising his duties as such when so
by the mob.
at is contended by counsel for the
City that the declaration is defec-
hive in that It does not allege that the
mob assembled for the unlawful pur-
pose of offering violence, etc, to said
Simpson, supposed to have been
guilty etc, or, for the purpose of
exercising correctional powers or
powers over said Simpson
by violence
at is argued that such other per-
som suffering death by lynehing, as
to in section 5, relates back
10 the particular person supposed to
have been guilty of a violation of the
law to whom the mob purposed to
offer violence, or to exercise corree-
tional powers over; in other words.
that the declaration should allege that
the mob assembled to offer violence
10 the particular person who was
Iynehed.
I'VE think this construction vio-
Iates the intent and purpose of the
act, as defined in its very title, An
Act to suppress mob violence As
to that end It penalties by
, fine any of the persons composing
The mob. whether injury results or
rot, and BY imprisonment in the peni-
lentizry If damages to property or Sc
-ious injury to the person Of any