Rensselaer Union, Volume 1, Number 50, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 9 September 1869 — Nose Pulling In Massachusetts. [ARTICLE]

Nose Pulling In Massachusetts.

A cuiuous case lias recently been tried in the Courts of Boston. On* the 24th of July, Mr. J. M. Churchill, a lawyer of Boston, entered a train going from that city to Needham, and for some time looked in vain for a seat, the cars being crowded. At length he found two seats turned towards each other occupied by three gentleman. On attempting to take tlio vacant seat, lie was informed that it was reserved. Mr. Churchill appears to have expressed some doubt of the statement in Ids looks and in his tone, if not in his language, and, remarking that when the expected person came he would give way to him, he sat down in the seat. Now', Mr. Churchill, as appeared by the testimony, is father a large man, and he had with him a traveling bag and a toy wagon. The gentleman opposite him, Nir. Daniel S. Curtis, who is a lawyer by profession and alsoa hanker, was doubtless annoyed at what he considered Mr. Churchill’s intrusion, and professes to hare been incommoded by Mr. Churchill’s luggage. Mr, Curtis accordingly remarked that '‘lie wouldn’t have the bag there, at any rate,” whereupon Mr. Churchill put it into the aisle. Mr. Curtis - then said, referring to the toy wagon, which was under Sir. Churchill’s feet, with the tongue up, “if get9 broken it will be your misfortune," or words to that effect. Soon after the gentleman for whom the sent was reserved came along, and Mr. Churchill; in fulfillment of his promise, gave up his seat; bill before he went he took occasion to remark in a low tone of voice to Mr. Curtis, “if you are a gentleman, I hnve never seen one.” Upon that, Mr. Curtis followed Mr. Churchill into the aisle and pulled his nose, and when he w T as told in return, that “nobody but a blackguard would begin a quarrel in the presence of ladies," lie struck Mr. Churchill a violent blow between the eyes and broke his spectacles. The other passengers here interfered and the train proceeded. Mr. Churchill being a lawyer naturally bethought himself of seeking redress in tlie Courts. The case came up in the Municipal Court, and, after a hearing, Mr. Curtis was sentenced by Judge Bacon to two months’ imprisonment. Mr. Curtis’ counsel appealed, and Judge Scudder gave an opinion, confirming thesentence of the Court below. The ground was taken that Mr. Curtis had not shown himself repentant, and that a simple fine was not calculated to prevent the breaking of the law again. The Court remarked : It lias been said that the same punishment affects different individuals in different degrees. It is true that an imprisonment for a short time might be a greater punishment to one individual than a much longer term would be. for another. The degree of punishment would depend upon the position, character and organization of the individual. This is also true when the punishment is by fine. It is the duty of the Court, therefore, so far as possible, to impose such punishment ns will attain the ends sought by the law—cither the restraint or reformation of the individual or an example to others. The punishment should be proportioned to the offense and and should be equal in all cases. The Court can make, no distinction between different ranks in the community. Mr. Curtis testified before tho loiver Court tlmt when lie took hold of Mr. Churchill’s nose ho simply “turned it Iu a moderate and quiet manner,” hut neither of the Judges seemed to consider this circumstance as lit all extenuating his impetuous conduct. Judge Scudder imposed sentence -in —the following -words: TMfWYre it is considered by said Court that the said Curtis, for the offense aforesaid,, be imprisoned in tlie common jail in said county, to he employed and kept at work therein in the same manner ns otliyr persons committed to said jail, for the term of two months.