Rensselaer Semi-Weekly Republican, Volume 22, Number 25, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 14 December 1900 — The Carry vs Clark Case. [ARTICLE]

The Carry vs Clark Case.

The case of John Curry vs T. F. Clark, superintendent of the Jasper County poor farm, was the last case tried at the November term, 1900, of the Jasper circuit court, and was also the case, which attracted the most public interest. It was begun on the last day of the term and continued over until Monday. The circumstances on which the suit was based, have already beea related and will be only briefly restated now: John Curry is an elderly single man, who came from Ireland some 12 or 15 years ago, and has mainly .followed the occupation ot a ditcher. very saving of his earnings, and it was clearly, established in the evidence that as long ago as 1897 he had 6aved $1,200, which he kept, at interest in McCoy’s bank, except he loaned SI,OOO to another party for a year, which was repaid and the amount again placed in the bank. The old man claimed that since his savings reached the $1,200 mark, whatever he received a 3 interest upon it and also what he could save from his earnings, were placed in a large flat purse, in large bills, and this kept in a pocket in his pants, and above and closing the pocket, he wore a strong leather belt. He claimed he had $550 in this purse when taken to the poor farm. Towards the end of August the old man got sick, and after laying around most any old place for a day or two he was taken to the poor houee, o of the con- j tract physician, Dr. Johnson, and in a semi-unconscious condition. He was taken there about the 28th of August, and remained 41 days. When taken there, a certificate of deposit for $1,200 was found on his person. This certificate was> very properly, taken in charge by Superintendent Clark. When Curry was well enough to be dismissed, the superintendent and attending physioian, took the view, not unreasonable under the cirourastances, that he, having so much money in the bank, ought to pay for his board, nursing and medical attendance. The certificate of deposit was therefore garnisheed by Mr. Clark, and thereupon Mr. Curry paid $165 50, of which sum $55 was paid to the attending physician. Curry soon afterwards brought suit against Mr. Clark for s7lo. Being as stated to recover the $165 above mentioned and also the $550 alleged to have been in the alleged purse in the old man’s pants pocket, when he was taken to the poor house.

At the trial it was shown very clearly that the law is that poor asylums, being charitable institutions, oould not charge for boarding and caring for people received there as paupers, even if it afterwards developed that they had plenty of money. It was shown, however, that Mr. Clark had paid out for nurses and watchers for Curry, S3O to Wm. Stephenson, sl2 to Mr. Burris and $9 to Mr. Hickman, or ssl in all. This and the $55 paid to Dr. Johnson were deduoted from $165 and a verdiot given in favor of Curry for $59. Regarding the alleged purse of $550 the evidence waß too indefinite to justify a verdict. It was clearly established by uncontrovertible evidence, that while the old man was still semicomatose, he talked about his

purse of money, but never; in that condition, • claimed to have more than S2OO in it. One reputable witness, E. P. Honan, said he was shown the empty purse when h© visited Curry a few days after he was taken to the asylum; on the other hand, his

first attendants denied he had any such purse on his person when they undressed him. The defense also introduced evidence tending to show that the purse, if he had it, might easily have been taken from Curry before he was taken to the asylum, at all. The jury, in their verdict, made no direct allusion to the purse story, but practically it was an exoneration of the poor farm management, in that respect.