Beckwith v. Bean

Bеan. Beckwith was the effect of the trust-deed executed Werek- really meister, made and of the several thereunder appointments Madame in of this view the matter the decision Jumel. As was in with the views of this court in the former conformity case, we hold it to be correct. therefore,

In of in which branch the case this every aspect, viewed, we think no committed error was may court below.

The The of the cause. this determines disposal question immaterial, other errors become Madame'- assigned entirely had Jumel no descendible in interest plain- property tiff to inherit.

Judgment affirmed. v. Bean. Beckwith A., army, acting provost-marshal who was an officer as a Ver- mont, B., during rebellion, abetting aiding arrested on the army. arrest, making deserters from the At the time of A. had war- rant, acting commanding officer, orders his based brought report having A. imprison- to him B. an made action for false latter, against A., satisfying ment for the of the mis- B., support testimony conduct of and in own as to state facts exist, making good which he at the time of the arrest believed faith to show, by offered to him evidence was not known to at the time of B.’s imprisonment, had, during rebellion, release from been latter engaged army, procuring men to enlist in desert after court, bounty; ground obtained their but the on the that the evidence offered suit, did not become known A. until after the commencement excluded Held, mitigation damages. it. that the admissible in

Error to the Circuit of the United for the Court States District of Vermont. The case was So- The argued by Attorney-Q-eneral Qeneral for error,

licitor- Mr. JE. J. plaintiffs for the defendant in error. Phelps Me. Justice Harlan delivered the court. opinion This is action Andrew Beckwith and J. Bean error, Henry, assault false plaintiffs battery was commenced imprisonment. year Vermont, and was tbenee Court Orange County County, Court of the United States into the Circuit removed trial and also The defendants guilty, for that district. pleaded term, the case was former several At a filed special pleas. division in a certificate of opinion court upon brought as to the district between the circuit and sufficiency judge to them be defec- We of some of those pleas. adjudged special return of the case the court 615. 18 Wall. Upon tive. resulted in a verdict below, of not a trial under the guilty plea $15,000. been rendered in Bean’s favor for having Judgment defendants, error is this writ of prosecuted. thereon against the discussion legal propositions Before entering determination, state the our necessary presented arose, which the and facts out of which litigation leading to establish. evidence before tended June, Bean, error, was, a resident the defendant Coaticoke, His busi- of Canada. ordinary the Dominión harness-maker, here- was that during period ness was, extent, some in the to he engaged inafter referred substitutes of substitute brokerage, furnishing business Beckwith, error, were our and plaintiffs army. Henry the former provost-marshal of the Union being officers army, second con- assistant and the latter provost-marshal were com- district of Vermont. appointed, They gressional sworn, missioned, the statute as required by popularly and were subor- Act Congress, known as Conscription Pitcher, who was assistant acting of General provost- dinates October, 1864, when until for Vermont marshal-general of said officers William Austine. All succeeded by Major to the of Major-General were and subordinates subject authority Lincoln, of President Dix, appointment commanding, by East, which embraced State Vermont. department Bean, June, 1864, one Jewell 14th of accompanied by theOn Buckland, to the from Canada came headquarters and one Woodstock, were Vt. Beckwith They Captains Henry Before leaving Brown and John Eldon Guptil. accompanied by should Canada, Brown the latter Bean had contract a substi- our as to the and enlist in come United States army In that Act. under the tute drafted Conscription persons interest, contract had an with Bean. Buckland by stipulation Woodstock, While at these five the same room. persons occupied Bean, Buckland, to, Jewell one J. C. proposed through, substitutes; to enlist Brown and and there- Guptil Stevens made, Stevens was to whereby agreement pay each, Bean and his for Brown and $600 associates Guptil out of that $200 substitutes receive each. proposed sum examination, Brown and were Guptil, upon accepted soldiers, clothed in $200 the uniform of each from receiving Jewell, Stevens, Bean, Buckland while received $800 them, between same returned the For Canada. day doubtless, immediate deser- purpose, guarding tion, Brown and were Guptil required provost-marshal office, their with a clerk deposit bounty security for their on the departure, evening, following recruiting Haven, rendezvous at New Conn. the next each During day, obtained dollars of five and the same bounty-money, day 1864,. June, the 23d of deserted. On all the facts cir- cumstances connected with the enlistment and desertion of Brown communicated Guptil verbally by Captain Pitcher, to General who Henry person directed that trans- northern border of Vermont portation be furnished to Beckwith, deserters, with instructions to arrest Captain Bean, Jewell, Buckland, well as them to head- bring furnished to quarters. Beckwith Transportation being in pur- order, of endeavored, suance that he under written instructions effect the arrest of the Captain but his Henry, parties; fruitless, efforts that 11, 1864, direction were until Nov. when, cars, him, Bean he arrested meeting using more force than He him informed at the time necessary. warrant, that he had no was order, but acting military and that the him was that of against charge aiding abetting Brown and to desert. Guptil Upon Bean succeeding day, was taken to headquarters, and his Captain order Henry’s by Windsоr, was in the State that placed prison being usual for confinement place persons charged offences — law, and he remained there in military until against custody 1865, when he was under the April, discharged, circumstances hereafter detailed.

Oct. 1878.] to show that his confinement Bean tended The testimony under circumstances was prolonged unnecessarily, only n humiliation his of inno- protestation severity, tried, courts, the civil demands to be cence frequent to him. It further tended show the offence imputed or caused confinement without trial such procured error, of such and that the results imprison- among plaintiffs Canada, his business in the loss of was the. destruction of ment sums and the large expenditure money. property, error, the evidence tended plaintiffs Upon part that, circumstances and such information as from the to show obtain, believed, each before and at able were arrest, the enlistment and desertion time of Bean’s of a previous Brown and Guptil pursuance plan Bean, Jewell, the deserters and formed between aided and Buckland, and that Bean and associates November, that, on 20th in such desertion and escape; abetted 1864, in his embodied regular report Henry tri-monthly Captain state- at Washington general to the provost-marshal-general “ arrest of Bean’s taking part ment substitutes,” and then for two being privy paid money $800; desertion,” the return of the he was held for Austine, December, that, wrote the 8th of Bean Major on him, been made to of his case had whether report inquiring on the referred to which letter was Captain Henry report ” December, such made case; that, on the 13th of Henry Captain until that date request and had delayed report report, direction Bean; that, on December Captain Henry, Austine, written statement of the furnished Bean a of Major him, it is claimed shall “And you saying, charges against $800, with the expense use of government fоr the pay ” that, December, arrest; he communicated to on 20th your that, December, case; on 21st other facts Austine Major communication, called the attention written again, case, that the expressing opinion Austine Major to convict Bean in his insufficient evidence then possession Act, under the Enrolment and in the civil courts suggesting author- he be over General Dix or the military that turned that, district on 3d than to January, rather attorney; ity, Beckwith 1865, advised, Austine was Major department officially the case of headquarters, Bean and his confederates was one fraud him gross government, authorizing them, to collect from either individually collectively, them; amount received to take all for the necessary steps arrest then at them in parties large, keep custody until the of their arrest were money expenses and to paid, them over, when the discharge money paid 1865; that, order Bean advised on 6th on 21st January, addressed, Austine, Bean January, a communi- through Major Dix, cation innocence, to General his protesting complaining Austine, ; trial before the civil Major courts demanding that, on 24th an answer came from head- January, department quarters, condition of Bean’s as set reiterating discharge 3, forth the order of Austine January Major directing “ to cause Bean informed that was arrested distinctly ” that, orders from these on 24th headquarters; February, Austine his sent all Major papers department headquarters, were transmitted to the adjutant-general army Dix, with an indorsement Washington, General “ Bean was held mine orders for (his) complicity gross ” States; fraud the United were re- against papers turned to Austine in after Major April, passing through War, offices Secretary adjutant-general, judge-advocate- general, provost-marshal, directions inspector-general, turned trial; that, that Bean be over the civil authorities for mentioned, the order last called upon receiving Captain Henry the attention of the district to its attorney provisions, case; that, 1865, his on invited attention to the 26th April, was taken Bean before a who justice peace, discharged bond for him before United States com- appearance that, when missioner called on 11th upon; May, held, trial was and Bean bail for give examining required answer indictment before his appearance grand jury, tribunal, find failed to an indict- upon investigation, him. ment in the bill of

It is stated in error exceptions plaintiffs evidence, written, or further no other oral either gave States, from the President or their orders United superior Bean. Beckwith described; the defendants that those officers, than just witnesses, not claim and did were examined Pitcher General to, issued, known had been approved said orders that President. that, while tended to show in error

The evidence plaintiffs Beckwith,in all treated that Bean was humanely; imprisoned, Bean, acted and confinement of did, to the arrest he in regard officer, of his and under the command faith superior in good did, latter, in all he acted that good Henry; Captain officers, as of his to the orders and in obedience superior faith detailed; to he and that from time time promptly hereinbefore orders he received from his Bean the superior communicated to officers. trial, in error offered in

During plaintiffs said Jewell W. and of of George Kinney depositions Brown, of which the defendant in error objected. the reading sustained, and in error plaintiffs The excepted. objection details the substance of conver- in his deposition, Kinney, him with Bean after latter’s He held discharge. sation “ matter, him in to this with asking I talking regard says: rather to be those fellows think it taking if he didn’t rough shot, or words to that effect. He side to over the other get shot; have were he didn’t calculate to them replied, smart, them back in few Witness he should have days.” Canada, were during therе good persons many says as deserters from the Fed- war, who were known generally from Bean that his he understood eral dealings, army, class, and that some en- extent, with that persons some been out two three times.” him had listed already he en- of Brown shows July, The deposition and within a Maine in Federal the State of army, listed in Canada; deserted, and went that Bean thereafter short time deserter, others, who, he knew him to be a thought, and en- he should return United States suggested times, ; hard concluded that, he list in consequence that, with Jewell after advising adopt suggestion; on, he overtake told him to and would latter subject, go road; same time him learned at the him; Jewell that one Isaac Thomas would be sent along enlist, them, that en route to Vermont Buckland overtook ” ; him and claimed as his man that farther (Brown) along Bean and held a joined conversation journey party, ; with Jewell Buckland from the witness that there apart was conversation in the crowd about Thomas and himself en- names; that he under assumed concluded listing change his, but assumed the name John Thomas Guptil; Lebanon, was first determined to enlist at and for that purpose Jewell, Bean, and Buckland went to the provost-marshal’s there, office at that to enlist all place, failing pro- Woodstock, ceeded to did where enlist. shows that he was Jewell himself a deposition Bean,

deserter. He details the circumstances under vdiich Buckland, and himself formed the to Brown and place as substitutes in his Guptil army. appears deposi- arose between tion that some Buckland and Bean about dispute ” Brown Brown. Bean insisted that to him. Their “belonged differences were an “to divide the compromised agreement by He him in.” and Brown put profits they explains why Gup- at til were not enlisted Lebanon. He allWe went says, Lebanon, to from White River Junction where the provost- was, office to see what we marshal’s could for the men. get there, to our sаtisfaction Not we concluded to succeeding go elsewhere. The reason was were their men they shipping to Brown did not want to direct Concord. to the daily go soon, but wanted time to front so longer get away, all; at to went back to White go front River designing Junction; fell took dinner there. We in with a man men, This man was name Stevens. and said he buying there, so for them to would much more take give something and them them Woodstock in. We concluded best put was to take them to We team Woodstock. way procured Woodstock, Bean, . . at . When we came to junction. Buckland, first, and went to the office myself provost-marshal’s men, there, all went and afterwards but did not enlist the for the reason that the men till could not get bounty they and would not enlist. drove back to camp, We they got Junction; saw White River Stevens think he again; gave much, them some can’t tell how back Wood- money, go had received Thomas) stock and enlist. After (Brown they time with Woodstock the second started to they money, I remained at the subject Stevens. junction. My being there, to remain service, Buckland advised me Bean and the business of the men Wood- would do enlisting they back, Bean, Buckland, and we came all stock. Next day they — the had received nothing took train for Canada. I myself said before that from Thomas. out they They bounty home, we would fix all when home. After we got me right got noth- about I to them it. said said something They I knew me, ... that I was back myself. ing lucky get Canada, Thomas, before we left from both Brown and all, in- us were deserters. It was understood distinctly Buckland, Thomas both Brown and Brown cluding deserters, were that was the reason we selecting why enlisted. At least other names which were to be it, understood it so.” was the I understood all way supposed evidence, overruled the conclusion of the the court Upon action, refused to in error to dismiss the motion of plaintiffs them, elaborate as asked instruct gave case. evidence and law the charge upon of the court below excluding depositions action Brown, first question Jewell presents Kinney, error contends our Counsel for defendant consideration. are not admissible stated in those facts depositions not even mitigation damages. purpose, can doubt that the facts detailed There rational witnesses, before the those in connection with the evidence were, at the show that Brown and Guptil conduced jury, Jewell, substitutes, Bean, known to enlistment time of their and that be deserters from the Federal army, and Buckland associates, his enlisted them in with Bean, pur- in conjunction Canada, that had before of an leaving suance understanding as soon as received desert would they bounty, would the aid which receive all that in such desertion render. We Bean associates could opinion and his express en- witnesses were to which these as to the of credit degree reached have titled. Nor do we should jury say establish, viz., which conduced to conclusion their evidence VOL. VIII. was, fact,

that Bean in for the offence which guilty Beckwith, arrested under the written and verbal orders officers, conviction, an offence superior punishable, $500, a fine not not exceeding imprisonment exceeding two less nor than six months. 12 Stat. Was the years 735. excluded evidence for case ? in this competent any purpose We are of that was of dam- opinion competent mitigation It tended to show the state ages. case which plaintiffs error under oath believed in faith existed at testify good the time of the arrest. It conduced to show that plaintiffs error did act from mere ill-will or from personal corrupt motives, wanton, and were not of a reckless exercise of guilty mere one power humiliating oppressing who had not become obnoxious to the laws of the land. It tended to rebut of malice which arise presumption might from thе arrest and simple imprisonment, unaccompanied by of the reasons In therefor. connection with any explanation was admitted without it seems to objection, which, law, a case under the did present not call or admit of vindictive or punitory damages ‍‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​​​‌​‍against plaintiffs In error. whether the case determining demanded such dam- had the ages, consider all the right attendant facts and circumstances out of which the arrest and imprisonment arose. could not well fact that the They ignore important arrest occurred at a when the period history country’s intensest for the fate of public anxiety the Union all peryaded classes. The necessities of the and the condition government of the most army compelled adoption stringent and, in some for an increase of respects, harassing regulations the national forces. The enforcement those regulations, localities, some was made the occasion of tumultuous assem- which threatened to disturb the blages peace country, at a time when the utmost of action were energy unity for the required preservation armed government against insurrection. Citizens were drafted to enter required service, or furnish military substitutes. The acceptable plain- tiffs in error delicate charged duties important connection with the enlistment and enrolment of substitutes that, that service. presumed independent Bean. Beckwith v. oaths, official they of their the obligations

desire to discharge for the government, safety anxiety shared prevailing speedy fact that its depended safety recognized Neither it. in defending then additions engaged army the efforts is needed to prove nor argument would draft forces the national to strengthen government thwarted, retarded, and altogether been perhaps have seriously could, and for purposes with impunity, substitute brokers if recruiting enlistments upon fraudulent impose gain, рrivate the desertion at or and abet officers, aid then connive their bounty- had received as soon as they the substitutes influenced, or to what such considerations Whether money. influenced, the course of plaintiffs should have extent they whether when determining punishment for the error was jury, Further, should be inflicted. Cap- damages by exemplary of such believed that Bean faith guilty tain in good Henry deserters, it was his two the enlistment misconduct and circumstances to the facts superior to communicate duty to Beckwith to arrest Bean If the order given by officer. faith, it to be his the com- him in believing duty obey good Pitcher; officer, if Beckwith General of his mand superior belief, faith; and in under a like like the order good executed and the ordered from an was made imprisonment if the arrest interests and honest guard public protect of sham from the evil enlistments and fre- consequences army desertions, entitled, consideration of by every quent in a more favorable to stand before the jury light upon justice, than would or should have stood damages question ill-will or actuated one sought had been oppress the conclusion that he had not whose conduct justified fact, therefore, which served to illus- violated law. Every error com- motives plaintiffs trate the governed of, and fact which complained fairly every trespasses mitting existence or non-existence of conduced to just grounds prove the fraudulent and acts to Bean illegal charged for imputing arrest, him, as the cause of his and which were assigned evidence, in mitigation justification, were competent is the settled doctrine that are gradu- It damages damages. the wrong.” intent of the committing party Sedg- ated wick, 455. well settled that in Damages, the absence equally malice, fraud, gross cases oppression, trespass person or estate, the should restrict damages compensation satisfaction for thе actual sustained. injuries Dam Sedgwick, 39; al., v. ages, Woodworth et 13 How. 361. Day They may, when shown, is not legal consider the direct justification ex time, incurred the penses his loss of his injured party, bodily under some circumstances mental sufferings, his loss agony, of the of reputation, in involved the degree indignity wrong done, and the consequent public disgrace attending injury. These and similar elements of be made the basis of injury may and such compensation, cannot be compensation diminished by reason of motives of good upon part But wrong-doer. “ seeks, when the here, as to show a case of injured party great aggravation, injustice,” asks cnielty, ground for or vindictive of it exemplary damages, by way punishment, was in reduction of such vindictive competent, damages, of for restricting dam compensatory in evidence such facts and circumstances ages, give connected of with the show the truth of the complained injury might case, whole existed at time of arrest. In v. Wood- Day worth this court said of (supra), question smart-naoney “ has been left to the discretion of the as the de always jury, of thus be inflicted must gree punishment depend upon ” case; is, of each circumstances the de peculiar wantonness, malice, of of the defend gree oppression, outrage that, conduct.” Hence it has been ant’s held where the injury warrant, arrest was an without complained defendant show, in and as could mitigation damages, explaining the arrest, was plaintiff suspected justly felony. Evid., 267; 3 Greenl. sect. Evid. The text 2 518. Phillips, rest seems to Chinn Greenleaf v. partly upon authority Morris, Ohio, & M. v. 1 13 Ry. Simpson McCaffrey, first case was 508. The assault and false im trespass defendant had The prisonment. given charge constable and he was taken the officer felony, who dismissed the The defendant ad magistrate, charge. trial, mitted, on that he had not sufficient evidence to sustain the to show that there proposed felony, v. Bean. Best, J., hеld C. of suspicion.

(cid:127)was reasonable ground That case reduction damages. admissible evidence Lake, The cited, 3 H. & N. 276. with approval, Linford and search- entering case in Ohio trespass illegally house, and house, ransacking tearing up porch, ing plaintiff’s desk, Certain without legal authority. breaking open as in as well mitigation damages. hi was offered justification ruled out The evidence justice The court said: in no sense consti- bill of as shown exceptions, peace, of. But it was complained tuted justification trespass per- of damages. principle competent mitigation cases, naked compen- certain damages, go beyond mitting sation, and the is for guilty party example, punishment wicked, motive and design for the malignant corrupt, act. A commit- him to the trespass may wrongful prompted and from an honest mo- notion of ted from a mistaken power, end. But the law tolerates some tive to accomplish good act; in morals and nor excuses such such abuse power, yet, law, crim- there is a vast difference between the of the the eye motive, from a of a acting mistakenly worthy person inality act from a wanton the same and one and malignant committing Hence, and wicked when a with a and corrupt design. spirit, are called damages, upon give beyond jury smart-money act, party guilty wrongful compensation, punish difference, or rather all would show evidence which or disclose which tend to and circumstances the facts explain of the the motives and committing wrongful design party act, which should to the for due are go jury consideration.” Smith, is Roth v. 54 Ill. 432. That was

To the same effect and to recover advised procured, an action damages having affidavit, of the the arrest and imprisonment plaintiff, by upon officer, enlistments. a Federal discouraging admitted, Evidence was objection plaintiff, against enlistments; that he in fact and appeаl discouraged held to be of Illinois that evidence was to the Court Supreme it ex in reduction competent damages, upon ground arrest, tended to circumstances alleged plained That malice. show the defendant was actuated by v. Lawrence, court, : said Chief Justice Admit- speaking through that on facts the would Inn been these e en- ting proof plaintiff amount, titled to a verdict for some he would not have certainly been in entitled sum the large nearly way damages, true, the affidavit was as he should if it have received had not true, been true. the affidavit was not and if If the arrest was by defendant, malice, should procurement jury presume award vindictive If the affidavit fact was heavy damages. true, defendant, it, and the could that the see jury making even it furnished to the marshal and ad- though voluntarily vised the arrest of the was without malice and acting plaintiff, in the belief that the arrest of the required public good arrested, that, and that he could be plaintiff, legally arrest, so far as defendant could be said to cause causing it, he believed himself to be in the of his performance duty citizen, case, it in such would be the clearly, duty and not vindictive jury give only compensatory damages.” In McDowell McCall v. which was an action 283), (1 Deady, for false McCall brought General Mc imprisonment Dowell, had, in evidence that the appeared gross exultation at the assassina incendiary language, expressed Lincoln, tion President for which conduct he was arrested orders under the of General McDowell. While imprisoned not, in this conduct did of the learned opinion judge trying case, arrest and furnish legal justification imprison evidence, ment, it competent mitigation damages, motive, to show that the arrest was bad without go defendant, what the discharging conceived, functions, execution high responsible public faith, to be his at a critical in good duty period country’s history. Williams, B. case in Mon. 687.

A Bolts (Ky.) рoint an action false imprisonment. That trespass warrant, defendants, in without violation appeared and de- the laws of of apprehension Kentucky regulating States, arrested the in of from other plaintiff tention fugitives which State it was Ohio, and took him to from that State committed a fugitive having alleged justice, defendants, The of not plea there. guilty, felony he had the declarations offered to plaintiff prove been Ohio, had a reward in and that committed a felony such dec- while It was held that for his offered apprehension. for the establish larations did not apprehension justification State, ad- were of beyond they plaintiff transportation to show that of conducing missible in mitigation damages, arrest, honest defendants, in were prompted by making to the motives and no ill-will plaintiff.” in Mr. doctrine is announced Mayne’s The same general “ Of of That author says: on the Law Treatise Damages. course, of be a aggrava- where motive ground all cases may in reduction tion, be admissible this score will also on Hence, evi- for false action an imprisonment, damages. be reasonable suspicion dence given may up of a without attempt setting had been guilty felony, “And if the same author: the plaintiff Says justification.” arrest, evi- offence not an for an justifying custody giyen of the offence. is nature apol- dence be given may 74, 75. conduct.” for the defendant’s Damages, pp. Mayne, ogy to be seems citation authority unnecessary. Further cited meet our in the authorities approval, announced rules treatise adjudged not referred we are any elementary the court It results that the law which states differently. case to the erred in objections reading sustaining below Brown, The reasons as- Jewell. of Kinney, depositions court, were insufficient. The their exclusion signed them, it did so that the said that ground excluding was not a for the of said Bean question or innocencе guilt but that all the facts circum- jury, determination defendants, or known to the with which stances became imprisonment, acquainted prior way they for the malice admitted rebutting purpose could ; faith but that could not acted in good showing of which heard circumstances never in evidence give of this suit.” It true that the commencement until after was not for of Bean the determination or innocence guilt for the offence for the inflicting punishment the jury, shown, But, it was to him. right already imputed in error damages, mitigation prove, plaintiffs 280 Beckwith v. Bean. conduct, were in their whole a sense governed,

tbey pub- lic not duty, by malignant oppress humiliate the defendant in to show error. It was their right case, truth itas existed at the time of actually arrest, sustained the belief under which acted. they would, however, valueless,

Such a be and such right proof if the were impossible, not allowed to whether jury inquire fact, were, there in Bean the just grounds upon charge fraudulent and which acts the reason illegal assigned for his arrest. The or existence non-existence such grounds influence the mind of the in might materially determining whether the in error acted from a sense of or plaintiffs duty, from malice and sheer If wantonness. evidence of an honest belief, error, Bean part plaintiffs privy desertion of substitutes was competent mitigation was, fact, vindictive that he of that damages, proof guilty offence would serve to show such belief was not recklessly “ formed, and that was not a inconsiderately pure Lake, invention.” v. The fact of Bean’s supra. Linford the desertion Brown and believed, complicity Guptil faith, and Beckwith to exist when the good by Henry arrest occurred. So imprisonment oath. testify Should be from such precluded establishing complicity by Bean the admission of himself to witness Kinney, simply such not made until because admission was after Bean’s release We think not. Had the admission been in custody? well its could not be doubted. That it writing, competency was verbal is an not to its but to objection, its admissibility, value as evidence which to find a verdict. Yerbal con admissions, fessions made in the presence witness alone, constitute, evidence, true, it is unsatisfactory very partly because with fabricated. It facility they may “ caution; is, therefore, to be received but where great identified, the admission is made and precisely deliberately it affords is most often of the nature.” satisfactory 200; Williams, ; Evid., sect. Botts v. Greenl. Higgs supra Wilson, caution,” 3 Met. The the Court 337. (Ky.) says should be of Appeals Kentucky, applied proof statement, and not when statement proved.” of Brown and same considerations to the evidence apply Most, to which all, if not facts Jewell. substantial and before the were known defendants error at deposed corrobora The excluded evidence was in arrest. support which was known and believed at the time of of that tion to exist. It was cumulative evidence of same arrest general that which was admitted without character as objection. in error introduced no new issue. That plaintiffs may advised, facts that those have until after Bean’s discharge, been the of Brown Jewell could be established by testimony could, cor or in more than other witnesses more clearly fully state, would constituted what other witnesses roboration of the determina exclusion that evidence. Nor is reason for the in the fact that the defendant this affected tion of by question error, of his confinement trial, more the long complained upon the all We should in than of arrest. regard original prison and not circumstances merely attending imprisonment, was continued. Read which imprisonment during period ; Starkie, Evid. One of 2 M. S. 1453. & 78 Sowerby, court, of the before the shown the charge the issues jury, by in for the of the error pro plaintiffs was as responsibility and the denial to Bean of the imprisonment, longation faith it is true that While good trial in the civil courts. speedy been suc have arrest might imprisonment original in bad faith continuing imprison ceeded unnecessarily courts, in civil ment, trial Bean preventing it was for offence charged, alone specific cognizance either side could evidence which all the legitimate upon jury, fact. If ex whether such was the to determine produce, faith the issue evidence was good cluded competent upon — we have held imprisonment, the arrest and original it were entitled have was, error plaintiffs case, of the whole since consideration in their before the jury in that in their respect, might proof, failure deficiency that from the outset have believing very justified motives. were actuated improper they than that the admission A less rule in liberal often work the in this would grossest injus- indicated opinion are where, here, vindictive damages sought tice in cases v. Bean. subordinates, whose mere credited testimony, faith, would show acted from a sense jury, good their and in obedience to the orders of public superior duty, officers, assumed, rested, who whom promptly justly not responsibility, only prolongation impris- of, onment but for the denial trial in complained speedy the civil courts. this branch of this case it is to make one further

Upon proper Brown, remark. When the and Jewell depositions Kinney, offered, that, substance, were objection evidence, not were but that if competent either of any part admissible, them was it was so inadmissible intermingled statements that the whole became inadmissible.” The objec- offered, tion was made at the moment were without calling the attention of the court to the particular portions depo- sitions which were claimed be inadmissible under view ‍‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​​​‌​‍the case. excluded such They upon any ground. were excluded broad They ground the facts and those circumstances detailed witnesses were not heard of in error until after the commencement of plaintiffs action. In this condition of the record it would be improper court, said, for this in view of what has been to sustain the below, because, of the court in those ruling simply depositions, be, there, there here and isolated statements not may affecting testified, the substance of what the which, witnesses could have been excluded specific objections, as incompetent the under rules the admission genei-al of governing testimony. the conclusion of the evidence before Upon the the jury, moved, in error in dismissed, that the be plaintiffs case writing, “ the that all the facts establish ground that proved the them, recover, acts done for which the claims to by them done as officers under the author- by acting military States, of of orders the President of the United ity the during existence of the late rebellion the United States.” This against denied, reason, motion was other, for the for no properly that case, there were facts the many in disputed disconnected from of from derivable the orders authority general of question It was the President. of the the to consider province jury in those facts connection such of with law as the propositions Beckwith reasons, For like for their court should announce guidance. refused to the requested the court charge jury properly evi- the in error. ignored That request altogether plaintiffs testified, sub- error, who defendant dence introduced the error, under circumstances that the plaintiffs stantially, wantonness, fraudulent and by improper oppression the officers to continue their superior representations, procured them than prevented necessary, imprisonment longer for the offence court charged. trial in the proper having speedy evidence, and consider the It the province jury true, the and had discredited opposing believed it to be if they evidence, would been entitled defendant in error have abuse authority verdict reason corrupt any oppressive the arrest and in error in on the of the making part plaintiffs and continuing imprisonment. ordering said case before us a deal was In the good argument elaborate in reference to portion in error take discussed right plaintiffs 2, 1863, March entitled An Act re- under the act of shelter habeas regulating judicial proceedings lating corpus 1867, cases,” entitled An Act and the act of March certain certain conclusive to declare valid and proclamations thereof, orders, or of his President, done in and acts pursuance of the late rebellion United the suppression remembered, act, States,” former will authorizing or under the issue. made general to be special plea, defence Acts, passed Congress are known Indemnity They officers, who, and others between of military the protection dates, arrests, or were connected with the im- made certain trial, under orders authority prisonment President, persons charged par- proclamations rebellion, or with late in aid disloyal practices ticipation error it is insisted plaintiffs part Upon thereof. as to was so inflammatory prevent dispas- the charge of the defence consideration relied upon. and impartial sionate court erred what it said as to insisted further in error to provi- plaintiffs justify the right to. referred It is further insisted statutes still of the two sions acted in faith under having good Henry 284 Beckwith v. Bean. officers,

directions of their both in superior ordering making arrest, arrest, and in Bean in after such holding custody not, event, could be for vindictive liable damages, however their acts been. have these illegal Touching may to court, is objections sufficient to charge say are not the bill of in such form presented by exceptions that we should consider them. The only exceptions are in these words: “To the оmission of the court charge as and to the charge the court requested, charge placing construction said acts of and to so much of the upon Congress, as relates of the defendants charge attempted justification act, detailed, said hereinbefore the de- fendants excepted.”

We have commented refusal of the court already upon in error. The charge requested by plaintiffs excep- tions to the are too given indefinite to charge vague raise were claimed in questions arise argument under the acts of 1863 1867. Lincoln v. 7 Wall. Claflin, 132; Turner, 362; McNitt v. 16 id. al., Beaver v. et Taylor U. S. 46. The exception more definite than scarcely to the whole would have general charge been. exception We cannot tell what of the elaborate specific portion charge the acts of or what construing Congress, portions specific the evidence relied charge concerning upon justifica- acts, tion under those were intended to be covered was to a series of general exception. exception proposi- tions in to the construction and to the gross, relating validity, certain of these acts of and to a mass of Congress, aspects, for the evidence introduced the defence establishing allowed those acts. Some of those seem propositions case; sound in view of the did since the exception call the below attention the court to the specific propositions to, it whieh were cannot be here. objected regarded For reasons, same we cannot consider the error of the alleged court its vindictive charge upon question dam- jury While some amount found portion ages. be attributed to the the court

may subject it is of vindictive sufficient to damages, say excep- forbear, taken tion was We point. therefore, any the evidencе before the of as to whether jury expression opinion the this case within authorized vindictive brings damages, We of the statutes of 1863 1867. express provisions statutes, those to the construction of or as opinion law which arise thereunder. of constitutional may questions course, because counsel for de- this feel adopt We obliged error, decision in 18 that our Wallace fendant in assuming of settled all the the certain pleas ques- special sufficiency 1867, which could arise the acts of 1863 and tions under upon not, issue, this did in case under the evidence general of discuss oral or grave questions argument, printed which, law and constitutional general perhaps, statutory for our present charge designed exceptions our restrict decision We therefore determination. determination; viz., for our properly presented single point from the erred in deposi- the court excluding Brown, Jewell, and ground tions Kinney, reversed, further directions such is the judgment with this be consistent opinion. as may proceedings case, will be whole we.are opinion justice Upon case; and it trial of the another

So ordered. hear the this did not argument Millee Me. Justice decision. or take its case part with whom concurred Field, Me. Justice Me. Justice Clifeoed, dissenting. in this of the court to concur in judgment

I am unable action reasons dissent. The case, I will state my his im- plaintiff, is for an assault battery six for more than of Vermont in the State prison prisonment law, under circumstances without months, process is a citizen of The plaintiff and oppression. great cruelty 1864, com- States, when the grievances though United committed, resident he temporarily of were plained Canada. record, uncontradicted from the appears 1864, from whilst November, returning on the 11th of Quebec, to Boston to his home the Province trip River,

was arrested in a car near Wells passenger State Vermont, Beckwith, dеfendant without warrant law, and taken to process Beckwith’s residence in Sutton State; in that that he was there detained during night father, that his who lived at beepers; miles, the distance of about fifteen sent, whom he had arrived but that Beckwith during night, refused to allow interview, them to have an in his that on except presence; taken, he was order of following day the de- forcibly fendant Windsor, in the State Henry, placed prison where he remained until the 26th of April, period months, six when he was admitted nearly to bail and released imprisonment; he was locked during period up and for first also, few night, days a daytime, cell, narrow and furnished one in scantily which con- being victs were confined at that after the first night; few he days allowed, was his cell, upon complaint coldness of the to worked, where the spend convicts day shops but he was did, out and required to return when go at no time to be out of of a and not to on sight beeper, go exercise; the corridors or in the that the food offered yard convicts, to him was the fare served to the which he could eat, not and that afterwards he obtained his meals from the week; a table small sum that, each keeper’s by paying this no him was during complaint filed with period, he was held the order of any magistrate: simply upon defendants.

And what is the excuse offered for this imprisonment and treatment; there could be none justification country where there were constitutional the inva- guarantees against sion of such as are found personal Constitu- liberty, tion of Vermont and the Constitution United States? defendants, What is the excuse ? this: that one Simply of whom -was the other assistant provost-marshal, provost- marshal, Vermont, of a district military embracing suspected aided that the had or been to the desertion plaintiff privy substitutes, two who had been furnished army Stevens, with one and for contract whom Stevens had paid been received $1,200, $800 which sum had plaintiff stated, de- others. аnd two Suspecting plaintiff, in the State until to hold him prison fendants determined not of what him to the coerce payment merely should received, his confederates but of what supposed he had The defendants claimed acting received also. States; but in the service United surely all time officers duties this is a mere enlisting pretence, of which the return of did not them to require compel money defrauded, and in which been substitute broker had have retained interest, could not United States had officers succeeded in its had these coercing payment. in the State for a few After the had been prison him, and in- called defendant verbally days, Henry that he formed him aiding being charged privy substitutes, be dis- he would the desertion of the $800, $25 additional for ex- on charged payment he innocent of the penses. plaintiff protested was told in a trial. He demanded reply by Henry charge, trial, I could have a words he (whose quote) one,” but that his case would be could not reported get assistant He then requested general provost-marshal. Henry he Later in make an immediate to do. report, promised mind distress of and anxious return great day, being his thinking perhaps money might family, him father to paid protest, telegraphed bring $800, and to withhold the report requested Henry untilJiis arrived, next but one his father arrived. On the father day and, told him that neither he nor in an interview with Henry, dollar, him to the would report requested plaintiff pay reads the The record then thus the case at once. (I copy time that his From that plaintiff urged constantly words): him, trial or that a should be given case should reported, bail, innocence; his to that he be admitted protested case, to the report frequently promised Henry repeatedly trial, ad- told him he could not nor be and his father get bail, time on mitted to would be and that he discharged any of the $825.” payment to his

On the 20th of November following, Henry reported it, officers arrest and the reasons for superior plaintiff, ; was he held for the return of the and in De- stating #800 cember, informed the Henry plaintiff writing charges him, that he should for the. use claiming pay #800 with the of his arrest. All government, expenses communications between the different officers military district, with reference to the show that he was held plaintiff, or of to desertion aiding being pr’vy substitutes, without to him trial for intention to any bring offence, coerce, but to his imprisonment, repayment he, others, which with two had from the received money substitute broker. In one his letters to the assistant provost- marshal, stated, to over with reference case Henry turning to the district that he did not think that the attorney, plaintiff Act, could be convicted under section the Enrolment any from which he then but that had he testimony possessed, facts, heard of additional which be sufficient might perhaps facts, for that No however, such additional purpose. obtained.

The record also shows his plaintiff, throughout efforts, made constant in various to obtain imprisonment, ways, bail, a trial or a release on which he was able to willing furnish; eleven and that were made his father journeys from the northern to Vermont Windsor and Brattle- part efforts, for that other borough purpose. Among Dix, to letter General commander of the de- appealed by trial, to him be order and to partment, him brought give his But innocence. no trial al- prove opportunity —him, lowed right belongs, ought belong, one, land, him, the humblest in even was denied to every ; a born citizen of the States and not United until after the intercession, at of a member of Washington, Congress in his behalf were taken Vermont for his steps release. His father and vain to the defendant pleaded Henry, wife, that his other who needed urging, things, among sup- last, on about be confined. At the 26th port, April, taken he was before justice and dis- peace on bail. charged case, of this add to the

To district enormity attorney 289 v. Bean. Beckwith that there in liis states States Vermont testimоny tbe United district, Avar, per- other cases in his during were many desert, and that soldiers Avith or assisting sons charged inciting and that him to be turned over to prosecuted, Avereall ; but that he knew him, civil in the courts Avereprosecuted by 1865, afterwards and that soon case until of this April, nothing of the on bail. The released grand jury plaintiff court his though found no cause for States prosecution, United told his to them. defendant Henry story Vermont, and were done these things being Whilst defendants, Avas, the action of lying plaintiff im- had been helpless though absolutely State prison there was in the of an Asiatic mured despot, dungeon the laws and rebellion in that State government on carried States; there were no operations United military limits; The courts of there was no there. jus- within its army State, tice, in the full exercise Federal and were both open, ; and the wasmot in of their military jurisdiction service, service, Avith such and for or in connected any way offence, or for other of Avhielihe Avas the offence suspected, any before them on could have been brought day year. and the that he was in the State report By imprisonment, ruined, his his business was personal property prison, sale, sheriff’s were seized creditors and sacrificed at furniture return to to leave his home and his Avife compelled in Vermont.1 her friends action, for their trial of the defendants relied

On fourth section of the act of tbe Congress defence upon 3, 1863, to habeas judi- March relating regulating corpus, ” in certain Stat. cases (12 756); cial proceedings 1867, valid and conclusive cer- declare the act of March President, done acts tain pursuance proclamations rebellion, thereof, his orders in the late suppression the defendants were to be that under them pre- contending 1 opinion majority give does not contained the statement As severity” men circumstances of humiliation account detailed showing subjected, an extrаct from tioned, plaintiff was the record to which the adequate opinion. of the case can No statement annexed to them embody exceptions. substantially entire bill of which does not made 19 VOL. VIII. v. Bean. President, sumed to have acted the orders of the released from thereby responsibility plaintiff. Stat. 482. And were not thus released from responsibility, then in evidence in they sought give mitigation damages of the certain which was discovered testimony parties long the after arrest and the imprisonment tending plaintiff, which, time, establish facts if known at that -wouldhave justi- extent, fied, to some as to his suspicions complicity the the substitutes. The court below held that escape the defendants were not released from under those responsibility acts; and that evidence of the possible guilt plaintiff, discovered after the commission of the grievances complained of, was inadmissible in Its mitigation damages. ruling both is of these as error the assigned positions by Attorney- ; but it is its on the first General that he ruling chiefly relies for a reversal of the It is that judgment. ruling that bis is directed. This court holds that argument mainly received; the should been offered have and it over- testimony rules the to the refusal of the court below to instruct exception the that the defendants were to be to have jury presumed President, the acted under orders of the and that statutes the constituted full and for the question complete justification of, acts not on the statutes were complained ground orders, invalid, issued, or that the if would have afforded no defendants, to the on the justification there ground evidence for the consideration wdiether de- jury fraudulent fendants had not induced their by representations to continue the officers superior imprisonment than him necessary,” prevented “longer having court for the trial offence proper charged.1 speedy case, this In I shall endeavor show that the considering requested jury by to the which the court was defendants to establish, give the facts which their believed, evidence tended to “ Congress complete justifica under the aforesaid acts constituted a full and complained and both the defendants for acts tion each of. And in the prove any order, all evidence to whether the President general absence of issued special, plaintiff, jury for the arrest and detention of only or were not bound, ; presume liberty, did but were that such was the presumption 2, 1867, law, the act of March and that presumption under such prevail must case, as there is no to rebut it.” v. Bean. where its as well ruling pro- court below ruled correctly, in- refusing give nounced erroneous should its refusal in that and that respect structions requested; mentioned sustained, the statutes that neither on ground constitute them could the President under nor orders of any the arrest plain- imprisonment justification any of law presented I shall examine propositions tiff. And were discussed in the order rulings the Attorney-General. President, order of The act of 1863 any provided rebellion, should be made or under his during authority,” ” for action or courts to any defence in all prosecution seizure, arrest, under and virtue search, or imprisonment order, or color of law of such Congress. orders acts, all act proclamations,

By or after March President, or done authority approval, acts law, 1,1866, martial 4,1861, and before respecting military July ‍‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​​​‌​‍courts-martial, arrest, commissions, trials military and trial of charged participation persons imprisonment, thereof, or as rebellion, or abettors or as aiders guilty in the aid, in or of violation the laws its any disloyal practices any rebels, war, aid comfort to and or of or affording usages or commis- acts of courts-martial military all proceedings sions, in the the au- or arrests imprisonments premises by — thereof, or in are or aid of the orders proclamations, thority valid, same extent and to the and declared legalized, approved, if the orders effect as and proclamations the same with arrests, issued, imprisonments, proceedings, been under the express previous authority acts had taken place, no that act also declares person direction Congress. “ for act done or in civil court be held to answer any shall any in aid of of said procla- or to be done any omitted pursuance with orders, or or authority approval mations or by ” matters and respecting within period any President other mentioned; officers and persons that all thereof, States, who in aid or acted acting of the United service author- be held have been shall prima premises, fade President.” ized by face, on their extend statutes, as is apparent only

These acts done in with or compliance orders express proclamations of the President. do not cover acts done They by persons discretion, own will and who have been at the may time in the service because government, simply were under the direction of the President com- general mander-in-chief. were not intended to They against protect and redress act judicial of a inquiry subordinate every service in or what he suppressing have military punishing may as a regarded matter how the out- disloyal practice, flagrant life, have thus committed rage may liberty, prop- Such was the of the decision this court when erty. purport this case was here before. 18 Wall. 510. is

It that pretended proof produced arrest and were made imprisonment plaintiff President; order or but it con- express proclamation tended that under the last clause of Attorney-General the act of it is to be that their action was au- presumed President, thorized and that are thus relieved from for it. accountability held,

The court below the construction assuming placed correct, statute to Attorney-General from the commission of the act the arose presumption — President, was authorized the act thus pre- — its own sumptively establishing validity, presumption this case was inasmuch as it repelled, appeared direction whose the orders were issued under which was arrested and imprisoned. appeared never had the sanction of the originated President. however, If, the court below erred there is respect, — defence, and a conclusive answer another one which renders futile and abortive all the action of attempts justify President, the defendants under orders of the any presumed is, and that that it was not within the of the Pres- competency ident or of to authorize or Congress acts here approve of, so to shield the from complained perpetrators responsi- mind, It is to be stated, borne bility. already not in the service of plaintiff military States; the United Vermont, that his arrest and were in imprisonment far distant from the sphere that there military operations; the courts were and of the State States open of the United could and that the of their exercise jurisdiction, full offence known to before them for have been brought any States, there, laws; in the United anywhere for the of one’s of the Constitution person security provisions arrest imprisonment unlawful superseded. in the service of the United States Persons engaged military is, law; is are, course, to what termed subject military has rules regulations Congress provided those offences in of the and the army punishment government under the Constitution pre- authority it. Congress possesses as well as the manner in which offenders tribunals scribe the and the for the laws protec- the discipline army shall be tried men and officers pun- tion of its summarily all ished; thus created persons and to jurisdiction does not amenable. But that jurisdiction service are military service, are citizens not in the who extend to persons military civil courts where the are open. States also, true, that on the actual theatre of be military It may law, be is martial but which would termed what operations rule, it is than the little else will of called martial better whether in the to all applies general, persons, commanding one, or civilians. that no what- service true military may with or ob- can there interfere ever his station occupation, measures deemed essential for success struct himself to immediate arrest without subjecting army, there laws of the land are ordinary summary punishment. war. of the civil the. laws of The jurisdiction superseded and force is there suspended, military authority magistrate is the The success are substituted. army controlling consideration, is bend. and to that else required every thing confined, success, be arrested and To secure persons may used or at the command of taken and destroyed, and property to his for an being responsible only superiors general, orders, His from the necessity abuse of his very authority. case, action there constitute legal justification — words, martial rule men. This in other his officers and except will commanding general, country and dominated limited army enemy occupied Beckwith hostile, field of In a not at a dis- operations. military country from tance of the cannot movements where army, with, courts are interfered and the immediately directly has no existence. open, men,

The doctrine sometimes advanced with more zeal by wisdom, than that whenever war exists in one the coun- of part the constitutional of and of the try personal guaranties liberty, of are has no founda- rights suspended everywhere, property, law, tion in the of the common of our teachings principles ancestors, Constitution, of the is at vari- language ance with notion of a free Our government. every just system structure, of civil is not such a and ill-jointed polity rickety when one disturbed the whole is thrown into con- part fusion and to its foundation. The fact that rebellion jostled existed in one of the could not have the effect portion country of the laws and Constitution in a superseding suspending from it. war in the South- portion widely separated loyal ern States did not disturb Vermont from her constitutional She did assent to that war and dis- propriety. theory turbance elsewhere could her laws destroy given security institutions, The same and the same juridical government. constitutional of the lib- guaranties protection personal citizen, enforcement, of the with all the means for their erty before; remained there as and the Constitution completely and laws of the States were as United of enforcement capable all their State aswar time vigor during The arrest and before or imprisonment since. plaintiff, President, were, of therefore, even if made direct order amendment, violation of the fifth constitutional plain declares that shall be of his without person deprived liberty mere due of law. No order or of process proclamation arrest and President not in imprisonment person service, in a removed from the State scene actual military hostilities, the courts are and in where the. open unobstructed exercise can constitute due jurisdiction, law, process such nor can it be made act Those terms, Congress. one, were as is known to used to every originally express what ” “ terms the law of the land in was meant Charta, Magna had become them. intended, synonymous were They v. Bean. “ from the arbi- court, individual to secure the as said by unrestrained government, exercise powers trary and distributive jus- right private the established principles 4 Wheat. 235. Columbia Okely, They tice.” Bank indi- depriving any government prevent designed due course legal proceedings, of his except by vidual rights our those rules and established sys- principles acсording enforcement the protection tems of jurisprudence of all persons. rights land,” Webster, said Mr. in his argument law theBy Case, is most intended College Dartmouth clearly condemns; before it which law, a which hears law general after trial. and renders judgment only upon inquiry, proceeds life, is, hold his citizen shall liberty, The every meaning immunities, under the of the protection general property, held in Those words have been society.” rules govern since the date of to have Magna law potency English Charta. declare that no freeman of that instrument which

The clauses his or or be disseised of freehold or be taken shall imprisoned, exiled, customs, or outlawed or oth- free be or liberties or any lawful be erwise upon by judg- destroyed, passed except land, the law of and that justice ment of his peers by sold, man, denied, con- be nor nor shall delayed any are be sufficient to and statesmen pro- sidered jurists by English of freeman from tect the liberty personal property every imprisonment spoliation. arbitrary arbitrary “ “ words, obvious,” Hallam, these It is interpreted says law, of honest court ample convey security by era, therefore, of civil From main of two rights society. charter, it must have been a clear John’s of our principle* King be detained in Constitution, that no man can without prison 8, 2, Hallam, c. Middle 310. And the part 2 Ages, p. trial.” men- in his Constitutional same writer, History England, checks es- the essential tions among upon royal authority, Constitution, of her tablished under Charta Magna part could committed to legal “that no man be prison offence,” warrant and that “the officers and specifying or other servants the crown violating personal liberty [>mp. be right damages, sued in an action for subject might liable, to be assessed or in some cases to crimi- jury, nal nor : could warrant or command process plead any in their not even the direct order justification, king."’ Hallam, Hist., 1, Const. c. 3.p. law,” Blackstonc, of the English consists glory says extent, times, causes, when, and the clearly defining wherefore, and to what of tin* degree imprisonment subject is lawful. This it which induces the absolute may necessity commitment, the reason for which it upon expressing every made, that the-courts habeas into examine corpus may and, case, its to the circumstances of validity, according may bail, admit to or remand discharge, 3 Blackst. prisoner.” 133. counsel,

As stated last claim on the vestige arrest, part government England right except such as was authorized process general law of the land, was overthrown in in the celebrated contest concern- warrants. The ing arrests legality general parties by such warrants from the of State was condemned Secretary courts repeated judgments highest England illegal unconstitutional, and from that to this such warrants day have never been issued. No barrister or in England judge would now have the hardihood to assert that such warrants are due of law. process me, therefore, it

To is a marvel that under a country, Constitution ordained men who were conversant with the Charta, of and claimed them principles Magna as their birth- which a Constitution declares in its it right,— preamble that is established to secure the of to liberty ourselves blessings — it could ever be contended that an order of posterity,” Executive, issued his will for the arrest and imprisonment citizen, of a where the are courts the full open exercise law, of their is due of or could process ever jurisdiction, of made such an act I never Congress. certainly supposed such a could be asserted proposition seriously before the of the its chief tribunal Republic by highest legal officer. I claim we could that in America, supposed justly under the personal our of the government, citizen republican liberty (cid:127) than that subject better guarded was greater made claim It is extraordinary only England. in this case justifies any argu- counsel of government so heretofore so fundamental and ment principles support at times It be necessary recognized. may universally to ad- them, at times with it is respect necessary respect them, in order to to restate of morality, mitted principles universal their caused them from rescue forgetfulness admission. on carry that the power government

The assertion would have been war the rebellion crippled and suppress if it could not have authorized the and its impaired efficiency their detention without examination arrest persons, with the trial, on complicity enemy, suspicion no so far as rests foundation whatever disloyal practices, or insurrec- There was invasion was concerned. Vermont there, obstructed the disturbance which regular tion nor any A claim from the administration of exemption justice. made' in is restraints law support arbitrary always affairs of unforeseen arise in the whenever exigencies power inconvenient; causes it takes delay; government. which, in a evidence time furnish committing magistrates con- is valued and guarded where personal liberty country the detention of the sus- would stitutional justify guaranties, therefore, ; and, such the advocates exigencies, say pected not be should of the exercise power, arbitrary than this to free insti- doctrine more A dangerous required. wit of man. could not be tutions suggested by for the arrest and law general required by proceedings — offence of a for a detention public party the ac- oath, examination witnesses presence cross-examination, and of producing cused with privilege — favor, in his objectionable delays creating testimony of the honest the shield loyal constitute safeguard to insure were designed punishment citizen. merely They innocent, and but to insure protection guilty, at the one would hold his mercy without them every liberty honest, ancient, principles All government. juridical is our Burke, and it glory and institutions of England,” says Beckwith v. Bean. them, we inherit so and re- check many clogs —“are tard the course of violence and headlong oppression. They were invented for this one not that what was good purpose, Whoever, should not therefore, be convenient.”1 just favors or subversion when in the suspension, except presence silent, actual invasion or insurrection the laws are is consciously unconsciously enemy Republic. If neither the order of the nor President the act of Congress could in a war State where was not suspend, actually waged, of th& Constitution guaranties intended the pro- tection of the from unlawful arrest plaintiff imprisonment, neither could shield the defendants from they responsibility them. Protection disregarding deprivation redress, be defeated if liberty would remedies for property made, where such could be denied. deprivation I from this to the second pass subject of the defend- position ants, that if not the acts were so justified they Congress, far at least to be for their exempted responsibility treatment of the entitled to were plaintiff, they give discovered, to establish the testimony, subsequently tending correctness of their suspicions complicity plaintiff in the desertion of the court substitutes. The below refused to erred, admit the this court holds that it thus testimony, and, reason, reverses its judgment. testimony consisted of three filled depositions hearsay, conjectures, beliefs, and other irrelevant matter which ren- understandings, them dered inadmissible a whole court on any subject; to, and on that ground they objected my judgment to have been excluded. were offered to show the ought They substitutes, the desertion of the guilt plaintiff aiding the evidence furnished was though vaguest character, them, most the court excluded on the unsatisfactory that the innocence of was not a ground guilt for the determination of the and that for the question jury; faith, mаlice and could good rebutting showing in evidence circumstances of which had never give heard after the commencement of the action. until As facts could not have not known at that time influenced the conduct 1 Letter to the Sheriffs of Bristol. v. Bean. defendants, how tbe it is difficult comprehend proof malice be received to show the motives —of

those facts could — then acted.1 or faith with which they good consideration, me that the it seems to of this Independently of the the innocence plaintiff evidence of or entirely guilt of the that he was immaterial. guilty complicity Assuming — defendants,— the admitted his to that he had guilt alleged, their conduct in the that- would not have circumstance justified been bound would have upon degree. They equally slightest — bound, more and no were in fact that assumption, — to be less, the before the to take plaintiff proper magistrate, him for to law. To keep nearly against according proceeded convicts, without six in the State among months prison taking be held bail or to officer to to him before the brought proper trial, whether were was a rights, gross outrage or innocent. There were magistrates county every guilty the to district act upon the State charge, competent control all cases to take laws ready attorney them. The defendants of the States United prosecute but detained the not omitted plain, imperative duty, only with a him for the offence not view punish prison, to be but to coerce from him which guilty, they suspected due him and others be him alleged by money payment is the law or reason al- to a substitute broker. Where another ‍‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​​​‌​‍in confinement one, holds who force lowing show extenu- to extort money, order payment had of some the man been of his conduct that guilty ation in all such should ? answer cases the law The offence against to its viola- that the law attaches penalties be proper whom those are tion, ministers penalties appoints 1 “ as follows : The record reads satisfying depositions offered for the The said three to, which known or did not come guilt Bean was not of, prior knowledge to said release. defendants to the guilt ground depositions or excluded said “The court question jury, but was not a for the determination innocence said Bean defendants, circumstances which were known that all facts and acquainted prior imprisonment, could any way became with rebutting showing they acted in purpose of malice admitted for they'had good faith, give not in evidencecircumstances which they could butthat this suit.” neverheard until commencementof afier Beckwith act, enforced; to be and whenever whoever can usurps offenders in authority attempts punish supposed law, other mode than that is himself a provided by For, criminal. as it was said statesman distinguished act, when the laws can jurist other England, every mode of is crimes itself an enormous supposed punishing crime.”

The doctrine announced the decision of the court in this case is than less this: gross nothing outrage upon aof be extenuated or rights excused person may by proof or, crime, himself been of some outraged party guilty least, had reason to sus- perpetrators outrage pect that he had. This doctrine evil. I know pregnant mobs, it, the violence of excited why, against guilty not find Let suspected extenuation. such a parties, may admitted, doctrine be once will and a blow be dealt greater than to it for a personal security any given century. cases, If we turn to the we shall find to adjudged nothing condemn, Thus, to the doctrine. support, every thing Delegal v. N. C. was action Highley 950), (3 Bing. for a a malicious before the de- brought magistrate, charge fendant that he had the to caused be made pleaded charge cause, reasonable and the what cause was. probable stating demurrer, was the held insufficient in Upon not sрecial plea defendant, at the time the the had been alleging charge, informed of knew or the on which the was facts made. charge defendant,” Tindal, If the said Chief Justice instead of on the elects to the plea facts relying guilty, bring before the court in a it is obvious that he justification, plea defence, must is so a that which allege, ground important under the that the of not viz. proof plea guilty, knowledge of certain facts which were circumstances sufficient him, make or reasonable believe the truth of the person, which he instituted before the existed in his charge magistrate, laid, at the mind time was and was reason and in- charge Whereas, for his motion. it ducement the law in is putting quite consistent in this was allegations plea charge some made ground independent existence altogether stated and that the now facts defendant plea; 801 Beckwith endeavors charge, originally support propriety cause, which have come without facts circumstances was made.” for since the the first time knowledge a defendant also, is true: the converse doctrine So, arrest, cause that, he had reasonable at the time of the prove be rebutted this cannot proof to believe the plaintiff guilty, afterwards, innocent. that, he turned out to be Foshay entirely v. 2 Den. 617. (N. Y.) Ferguson, cases, as will from an examination of adjudged appear measures have been on that when it must principle, illegal for offences taken to redress private wrongs, punish is it inadmissible to mitigation prove, public, that the guilty actual injured or exemplary damages, party or misconduct provocation of the offence constituting of a measures, where the provocation per the illegal except as to to excite and so recent calculated sonal character passion, of were com that the acts create the cоmplained presumption Thus, thus excited. mitted under influence of passion action of certain in an injuring trespass destroying Court of Maine held Supreme dwelling-houses, of dam for the defendant mitigation prove incompetent as houses of ill-fame. Johnson v. were occupied ages Farwell, So, in a similar into action, Me. shooting 378. it was held Court of house in the Supreme night-time, could not the defendant mitigation Illinois prove, and seduction of his the kidnapping damages, exemplary husband, and her done nearly year daughter by Misner, And in Ill. 55. trespass previous. Huftalin house, that it was occupied down plaintiff’s tearing house, females as disorderly whereby disreputable disturbance, was serious had suffered defendant injury inadmissible of New Court Hampshire held the Supreme of malice or in answer to a rebut the presumption either Towle, v. N. H. Perkins claim for damages. exemplary Gravlin, v. 49 Vt. 507. 220. See also Weston adduced be from the might adjudi- other illustrations Many the are plain founded cations the courts. They State the be allowed undertake punish- one can that no principle notions; that the to his own ment of according wrong-doers administration of for all offences is confided punitive justice officers, the law to certain and whoever assumes their public functions without authorized the being usurps prerogative himself becomes amenable to sovereign power, punishment. He shall be not the set real permitted offences up supposed of others to his own justify wrong.

Here, defendants abuse their official by gross having, confined the in a State con- plaintiff authority, prison among months, victs for not that he be many might prosecuted offence, but for avowed public purpose coercing not to set payment money, they ought permitted up, either of actual that the mitigation exemplary damages, was of an offence for which law plaintiff guilty pre- ' scribed In whole another different punishment. range in the American courts I can find adjudications English admission of sanctions the such which ruling testimony any purpose. cited the cases

There nothing opinion Pleas, from the or from deci- Common English majority Ohio, Illinois, sions of the courts has Kentucky, here one question presented, any relevancy may himself examination. circumstances of satisfy was there existed and were known which evidence allowed committed, of were and tended when the complained grievances them. cause for is no intimation to establish There probable doctrine, now the first of the cases of novel time announced, that discovered evidence could be re- subsequently not it. of conduct founded ceived in extenuation was, court to The charge except perhaps the- the case as favorable to defendants as one per- particular, facts, clear a succinct and statement of mitted. gave them with law declared applicable precision them the arrest of the It told plaintiff accuracy. with his consequence compared imprisonment; little at once before United taken States commis- had he been warrant, sioner, act, arrest without a though illegal for small and that called damages; would have importance in his consisted imprisonment of the case of it. after it was imprisoned In adding Beckwith v. Bean. courts, civil but to to him the the defendants try the hand until the was with a paid, hold him strong money evidence on the what the uncontradicted stated court merely this, said established, what was not For trial disputed. to to be court, he entitled just recompensed the damages, mind for be the his suffering body for paid expenses, the cell in the for in common State confinement prison, from it from his time when for the separation family disgrace, them; that he should be was separated important very brief, the imme- of his for for the loss personal liberty, from his his business diate and losses resulting necessary confinement, loss which he and to the immediately pecuniary added, To the that if the sustained.” court directly all a deter- was influenced in his conduct defendant Henry hold the release of mination prevent plaintiff, to be turned civil author- him after he was ordered over ities, ill-will, and was thus of malice the jury might guilty is, remunerative, that in addition punitive damages; give, exhibited, and such sum as would him for the malice punish refrain from similar conduct. teach him others to that of Mitchell The here is much than case stronger There the in the 13th of Howard. prop- Harmony, reported an officer had been seized army erty he the belief that was States unlawfully United with It turned out he engaged trading enemy. Executive Department govern- been permitted by trade the inhabitants of provinces ment to neighboring authorities which were military Mexico possession'of for In action trespass seizing United States. the seizure defendant, reasons, other justified among property, the order of his com- he in obedience to acted on the ground therefore, officer, and, not liable. But the court manding it, answered, referring Mr. Justice Chief Taney speaking Gambier, Lord Mansfield mentioned case Captain and observ- in his v. Fabrigas (1 Cowp. 180), in Mostyn opinion of judicial independent weight ing, “upon principle, can officer decision, maintained that it military can never act an unlawful by producing himself for justify doing it can never order of order may palliate, superior. And in that case the court added defendant justify.” did not stand in the situation of an officer who merely obeys the command of his advised superior, appeared order, it, and volunteered to execute when that more duty to an officer an inferior property belonged grade. Here the defendant officiousin secur- Henry especially and in arrest ing continuing imprisonment arrest; He advised the he plaintiff. insisted the im- upon coerced, $800 until the prisonment was and he payment the case urged over to the civil tribunals. against turning The him as actuated well as Beckwith is shown in spirit Sutton, the arrest, on the of his telling plaintiff day afterwards, when confinemenfin the State “that prison, desertion, could not hold him privy Canada, should take him to to be there under prosecuted the enlistment acts for men, foreign unless he enlisting paid over the money.” Gambier,

The case of mentioned Lord Captain Mans- field and referred to Mr. Chief Justice was this : Taney, By order of an admiral of the he had English down navy pulled the houses some sutlers in Nova Scotia who were supplying sailors with liquors, which their spirituous health was “ motive,” Justice, “The the Chief injured. says was evi- one, a laudable and the act was done for dently ser- public vice. Yet it was an invasion rights private property, law, and without and the officerwho authority executed this order was held liable action, to an and the sutlers recovered him to the value of the “This property destroyed.” case,” adds, he shows how carefully rights private are the laws of property guarded by England; are not less valued nor less certainty under the securely guarded Constitution laws of the United States.” The criticism to which the only perhaps is, charge open that it does not between the distinguish conduct the defend- ant Beckwith and that of the defendant The former Henry. does not from the evidence to have been as appear officious as the latter in efforts hold the persistent plaintiff until the was coerced from him. But no money objection the was on this made nor does it that ground; on appear the trial between was drawn as the extent of liability distinction defendants, dam other than compensatory two well have supposed were allowed may jury. They ages at best but amount awarded was poor compensation. as sufficient for indeed, consider verdict Few, would given humiliation, inflicted suffering wantonly the disgrace, was not at all the verdict damages, As punitive the plaintiff. case, one I will this last quote only On point excessive. Wilson, is the (2 case of Huckle Money in 1763. decided Pleas of Justice of the Common before Chief tried 205), and was was a journeyman printer, England. defendant, the messenger, king’s into custody by taken called North printed of having newspaper suspicion ; but he was used Avas six hours Briton,” and kept custody suffered or no The defend little damages. so civilly, warrant Secre to justify general ant attempted of that printers publishers of State apprehend tary Justice, overruled Chief but the justification paper; new trial recovered £300 A damages. and the plaintiff excessive, it this amount was for on moved ground received only weekly in evidence printer wages being denied, and But the motion was giving of a guinea. “ That court the Lord Chief Justice said: of the decision oath to consider the mere confined been the jury been £20 would have damages injury only, perhaps personal sufficient; done to the the small but damages injury thought in his station rank or the inconsiderableness of plaintiff, in which in that life, striking light did appear jury of law the subject liberty ap the touching great point trial; over all the them at the saw to magistrate peared Magna exercising power, violating arbitrary subjects, king’s to Charta, the attempting kingdom, destroy liberty warrant before the of upon legality general by insisting counsel, ; saw the of the Solicitor heard king’s them they and maintain the to legality the support endeavoring Treasury, — manner; and severe these of are the in a Avarrant tyrannical trial, and I on the think the the ideas which struck enter a To have done in damages. exemplary right giving warrant, in to man’s order pro- house a nameless virtue of VOL. Till. [Pup. t>. Bean. — evidence,

cure is worse than the a law inquisition, Spanish under which no wish live would to hour: Englishman was a most attack made the public upon daring liberty I the subject: thought twenty-ninth chapter Magna Ckarta, etc., Nullus liber homo et ncc capiatur imprisonctur, etc., ibimus, eum nisi judicium suorum super legale per parium terree, etc., vel which is legem per pointed against arbitrary was power, violated.”

I am the of the court below clearly opinion judgment should be affirmed. following given The the statement of the character of on trial the

touching plaintiff printed the treatment the from the record in the case: “ plaintiff’s day evidence tended show that on the eleventh of Novem- ber, 1864, trip Boston, while on his return from a to his in home Coati- a.d. cook, Quebec, passenger-car, in the Province of he was near arrested Wells River, Vermont, Beckwith, in the State of defendant without warrant or process law, Sutton, and taken from thence Vt. “ proposed Johnsbury That plaintiff jail, Beckwith at first to take to St. but (Beckwith’s) Sutton, him afterwards decided to take to his at residence to which place way, allowing plaintiff he was then on his the to sec his father, who lived fifteen from about miles Sutton. “ kept through plaintiff ensuing night, That said Beckwith the there the ; keepers plaintiff’s father, plaintiff for rvhom the sent after Sutton, during night, his at arrival came there but Beckwith to allow refusefi plaintiff except interview with (Beckwith’s) have an his father his presence. following forcibly day That on the will defendant of him, defendant, Henry, placed took order of Gilman the other Windsor, prison, Vt., him in State’s at where he remained until on or about twenty-sixth day April, bail, when he was admitted to and released imprisonment. said from during up night-time, “That all that was time he locked and for the days daytime also, scantily cell, first being few in a narrow furnished prison night; one those which convicts in State's confined allowed, days complaint after first few his the coldness of the worked, daytime, spend day shop cell where the convicts did, required go to his out return cell when not at time sight keeper, go yard to be out of a nor to or in corridors exercise; convicts, him was that the food offered the fare served to the and which eat; he could not and thenceforth he obtained meals to be sent himto table, week, keepers’ by paying per paid during dollars three which he whole time. plaintiff’s informed, tended show that he was The evidence further to at or arrest, defendants, by charged his that being after the time of he was soon with persons money paid $800 had who received one of three for two men who army substitutes, previous in the June and had immediately enlisted being privy deserted, particularly hereafter, to with as more stated and desertion. “ keepers till imprisoned Saturday, the he was on and but That saw one Henry him; following, Monday Henry that defendant came to when see discharged for ex- payment $800, §25 more him he be on told could trial; penses ; that he plaintiff protested a that the his innocence and demanded one, trial, by Henry get that his he a but was told could not have and could not Austine, reported Major Brattleboro’, provost-mar- would at case be to assistant shal-general. “ requested report, he thereupon him which That to make immediate day promised plaintiff being in distress to That much do. later same money anxiety family, thinking perhaps of mind and to to his return §800, bring protest, might paid telegraphed be to his father to come Henry, messenger requesting him despatch, and sent word to who took the arrived, report expected he would be on the not to the case till his father which following day. “ day had an That but one. That his father his father arrived on next pay Henry, plaintiff would interview and said to him that neither he nor the dollar, requested report case him to at once. “ defendants, his con- at and after He further told both both Sutton Windsor, privy to desertion at that if not him as finement could hold foreign-enlist- prosecuted should take him to to be there under Canada men, enlisting paid money. acts he ment unless ovеr plaintiff constantly urged “That that time his case should be that him, bail, given reported, or that a should that be admitted to trial be Henry repeatedly report protested promised his And to innocence. case, get trial, frequently him and nor but told his father he could not bail, discharged any payment time on to and that he would be admitted §825. throughout impris- plaintiff’s that evidence further tended show trial, ways constant in various to obtain a or a release on onment he made efforts furnish; willing bail, that his father made eleven which he was able and Windsor, &c., Brattleboro’, part journeys Vermont to from the northern Dix, Major-General among purpose; other he addressed then efforts — following department, letter: in command of “ ‘ Prison, Windsoe State’s ‘Jan. 1865. “‘ Maj.-Gen. A. Dix J. : “ ‘ here, Beckwith, deputy provost-marshal Sir, told lam one Daniel (of entirely I am I been committed here on a whom have being escape innocent) aiding privy of two substitutes who had Stevens, you my imprison- ordered paid §800 have received them one pay expenses. §800 ment here I till desert, ought aiding punished, I guilty “‘HI a soldier to I to be and can- am see, right imprison- sir, (I say you my respectfully) have order how giving prove my opportunity ment for me indefinite time without innocence. ‘“ nothing right, right every United citizen I ask what States; is, a trial. Little Rock National Bank. [Pup. “ ‘ orders, believe, sir, you I do not lmve such but the made fact I is. kept prison 11,1604, family suffering my am my and ever since Nov. character defamed, and a trial denied me. “ told, sir, attorney I duty am a there is United States Vermont whose ask, sir, investigate matters, respectfully is to if such I the matter trial; your jurisdiction, bring is within ami he directed me if .to government trial, ready respectable is not I can find number of people my government ready who will become bail until such time is try me. “ ‘ Again, sir, you candidly complaint respectfully I ask order a to be me, against and, proved guilty, consequences. made I must suffer the “ ‘ respectfully, Yours ‘“ Andrew J. Bean.’ Baxter, Washington That said Bean a obtained the intercession at of Mr. Congress member of from Vermont. early His April of an further show that he learned tended.to made, having Washington, order for his release did been sent from his father, urgent release, efforts to obtain his as his wife was then about be con- ; fined succeed, though Henry, did repeated applications not were made to wife, April, Henry until the 26th of and after the confinement of his when brought Windsor, justice him peace before a took bail who appearance before a United called on.” States commissioner when

Little Rock National Bank. bonds, engraved vignettes city paper, A its on bank-note various issued denominations, §100, ranging having appearance §1 from to form bank-bills, treasury paid the United and-it notes of States or them out to furnished, sold, property performed. its creditors for materials labor dues, received them for taxes and other "and to some extent reissued them. They circulating city portion formed a considerable medium of the vicinity. city authority empowering Under the a statute the State anj' extending city time of council to issue bonds for the maturity, city' paying indebtedness, it was unable its which to meet passed providing redemption an ordinance ‍‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​​​‌​‍for the of the bonds first described. them, A., parties which had issued to other the lawful holder of some of been overdue, city payment against and were surrendered of valid claims city, bonds for them in lieu of the amount due thereon received city. city provided, which the ordinance and credit on the books resisted, brought recovery failing pay, it. A on the A. suit ground engraved paper had been on bank-note issued in viola- the bonds law, was not valuable tion of and that the surrender of them consideration Held, original A. and the credit received whether the for the bonds —not, point law were issued in violation of this court does bonds decide, A. entitled recover.

Case Details

Case Name: Beckwith v. Bean

Court Name: Supreme Court of the United States

Date Published: Jan 18, 1879

Citation: 98 U.S. 266

Docket Number: 39

Court Abbreviation: SCOTUS