Year: 1869

FdIlOn agt Cdsey and Mills-Marine Court
Chambsrs-Before Judge Curtiss-This case 10 may BE-
MAS s1 cassT a3d Can't Mills for aress
John FaOn, tho plaintiff The plaintiff was taken before
SndsT 6e Essrsn act and he was discharged In @
suit the defendant undertook to show the character
Fallon as justification and as an excuse Ihe testimony
was excluded and Judge CUrtss charged the jury qHk
earnestly to the necessity OF preventing ARBITRARY
cents damages against each defendant


Tho plaintiff moved, on Saturday for new trial on TIE
against tine evidence not merely against the weight q
evidence. Mr.. Spencer, his counsel. argued that NE
dressed in respectable clothes was without any O1ense
without any warrant without any complaint, arrested
knew nothing Of him. The plaintiff had a gold ring o.
his finger good coat on his back S2Sin his pocket aD


bank book showing balance In his favor. Nothing ap
peared against him The only evidence on the other side
tho cOunse eloquence and the Buttons on the de-
fendants coat The was little to John FaOn, much
to tho general public from the principle involved twas
the triumph Of civilization that il protected personal
liberty from illegal invasion. He was amazed that u
men should have by such verdict encouraged these
arbitrary arrests II they could be made against Joht
Faon they could be made against any the Qs respect


Mr. Bookstaver in the first instance rerelled any nsn
uation Of having unduly approached the Jury


Judge Curtss, paying him compliment on ms honesty
and upghness said was not necessary lOI hm y 90


Mr. Bookstayer said he should not go into the merits s
the case. IL question OF law, ana on that ne
should present It, Prelimnary IL was not properly be-
fore the Court The motion was not made at tine time





was imperfect But more important the Court had
power to grant new trial on the minutes a. was sup
posed that the power given by the act OF 1867 chap
ter 7s4 But that act a local act, and was entitled
" An act IA relation to the appointment OF two ste
nographers and Interpreter OF the MPrtHs
COnrtp The tacking to 1t Of section With an
object not expressed In the title was clearly
unconstitutional. But II the act were valid II gave
power only where the Supreme Court had power VIZ !
upon exceptions for insufficient evidence for excessive
damages The first had no application here, Tor the
plaintiff had got in all evidence he pronered and haa sr
eluded all evidence he objected to the second cou9 noi
aply for the plaintiff had verdict; nor could the ttd
FOR no damages awarded against tie plahtn The
ground on which he claimed was one for when the Con


did not provide, that the damages were 100 small pVlm
which had been expressly ruled But beside all this TIA
Court had expressly charged as II should, that INA
amount of damages within the province OF the july
they had right render verdict against Casey Tor az
cepts and against Mills for $500 with regard 10 ths
amount that Is to be determded by yourselves" IL 10
oured extraordinary hardhood IN counsel after such
charge TO ask that the verdict given under 1t be set asd


Mr. Spencer replied briefly, arguing that verdict fo
mere nominal damages might be as much against eVf
dence as a verdict for the other side.


Judge Curtiss said, In conversational way that ne
had supposed that verdict for excessive damages
could be aside by party OF reasoning verdict Tor ID
adequate damages could be set asde. He thought tina
verdict ought set aside. It an encouragement
10 arbitrary arrest and affected .he liberty OF all eiLe
But inclined TO believe he had not the power
He would examine the question, and announce ms aeef
sion on Monday.


defendant.