Three Large Suits

               Growing Out of the Transient Traders'
                             Ordinance Cases.

                           -------------------------------

                         PROMINENT MERCHANTS

                           -------------------------------

          And Marshal Sweet Are Defendants in Three Cases.

                           -------------------------------

  James, Sloan and Croarkin Claim That They Were Falsely Imprisoned,
  As the Result of a Conspiracy, That the Jury Was Tampered With etc.

                           -------------------------------

Four of our prominent merchants and Marshal Sweet were Monday made defendants in the $10,000 damage suits brought against them.
The suits grow out of an attempted enforcement of the transient traders' ordinance in October 1897 and are commenced by Luther L. James, Patrick Sloan and Edward Croarkin, who formed a co-partnership and opened a clothing store in this city.
Each sues separately for damages. The defendants in each case are Zenus Sweet, 'William C. Reinhardt, Walter C. Mack, Delbert Goodspeed and Chas. W. Wagner.
The plaintiff's attorneys are Arthur Brown and O. E. Butterfield.

The declaration in each of the three cases is the same and stripped of a few legal phraseologies sets forth that the plaintiff now is a good, true, honest, just and faithful citizen of this state, and as such hath always behaved and conducted himself, and hath not ever been guilty or, until the time of committing the several grievances by the aid defendants as hereinafter mentioned, been suspected to have been guilty of any offense against the statutes and laws of the state of Michigan or against the ordinances of the city of Ann Arbor, by means whereof, he, the said plaintiff, before the committing of the said several grievances by the said defendants hereinafter mentioned, had deservedly obtained and acquired the good opinion and credit of his neighbors and other good and worthy citizens of this state.
Yet the said defendants well knowing the premises but contriving and maliciously intending to injure the said plaintiff in his aforesaid good name, fame and credit and to bring him into public scandal, infamy and disgrace and to cause him to be imprisoned for a long space of time, and thereby to impoverish, oppress and wholly ruin him heretofore towit:
On the 80th day of October at Ann Arbor, in the county of Washtenaw went and appeared before one John L. Duffy , Esq., then and there being one of the justices of the peace of the city of Ann Arbor, duly elected to keep the peace of the people in and for the county of Washtenaw and also to hear and determine divers crimes, tress-passes, misdemeanors and violations of the ordinances of the city of Ann Arbor and then and here before the said John L. Duffy, falsely and maliciously and without any reasonable or probable cause whatsoever, charged the said plaintiff and caused the said plaintiff to be charged with having willfully and unlawfully plied the vocation of transient trader in the said city of Ann Arbor, without first obtaining a license therefor contrary to the provisions of one of the ordinances of the said city of Ann Abor relative to transient traders, and upon such charge, they, the said defendants, falsely and maliciously and without reasonable or probable cause whatsoever, caused and procured the said John L. Duffy, to make, grant and issue his certain warrant under his hand and seal for the apprehending and taking of the said plaintiff and for bringing him before him to be dealt with according to law for the said supposed offense; and the said defendants under and by virtue of the said warrant on October 30, 1897, wrongfully and unjustly and without any reasonable or probable cause whatsoever, caused and procured the said plaintiff to be arrested by his body and to be imprisoned and kept and detained in prison for a long space of time, to-wit:
For the space of one hour then next following, and until they, the said defendants caused and procured the said plaintiff to be carried and conveyed in custody before the said John L. Duffy and to be committed by the said justice for a further examination to a certain jail or prison in the said county of Washtenaw."

The declaration continues that the plaintiff was kept and detained in this jail for four days until Nov. ; 3, when he was taken before the justice for examination.
The defendants are charged with "then and there falsely and maliciously and without any probable cause whatsoever and by fraud causing and procuring the said plaintiff to be found guilty of the charge aforesaid and fraudulent procuring he said plaintiff to be sentenced by the said justice to pay a fine of $15 am $4.03 costs," or to be confined in jai until paid not exceeding 15 days.

The declaration charges that the defendants then caused the plaintiff to be kept in jail for two days until he was compelled to pay "a large sum of money to-wit;
the sum of $50, "and to take proceedings to have the case determined in the circuit court, where on Dec. 1, 1897, it was determined that he was not guilty of the supposed offense and he was discharged from custody fully acquitted and that the case was never carried up.
A further count charges that the plaintiff's credit and reputation have been injured and that divers citizens to whom his innocence was unknown still suspect him of having violated a city ordinance and that he has been forced to lay out $500 for defending himself. 

The third count charges Sweet with making a complaint against the plaintiff under an ordinance which had been declared unconstitutional by the supreme court, after having been advised by the city attorney that the plaintiff was not amenable to the ordinance.
After the city attorney had refused to prosecute the complaint, the defendants are charged with procuring "from certain citizens of the city of Ann Arbor, with whom they had been and were craftily and wickedly conspiring to injure the said plaintiff aforesaid, a bond or obligation in the stim of $5,000 to be paid to said defendant Sweet" to indemnify Sweet from all suits, judgments and costs, and employed an attorney who was not an officer of the city to carry on and conduct the prosecution.
The bill also charges that the jurors who tried the case had been before consulted with by the defendants relative to the merits of the case and had signed the bond and were known to the defendants to be disqualified to act as jurors.

For all of which each of the three plaintiffs ask for $10,000 damages.