Oswego Daily Palladium, May 19, 1899, p. 8. Available online at https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADBR_enUS31 0US314&q=%22Marion+Tyler%22+lynching#q=%22Marion+Tyler%22+lynching&hl=en&rlz =1T4ADBR_enUS310US314&prmd=imvnsob&ei=L5YDT62tIOLs0gHbge2KCA&start=20&sa=N&b av=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=73ef3b6b92d39152&biw=1280&bih=768. LYNCHING CASE DECISION Heirs of a Victim Granted Right of Action for Damages Against Sheriff Indianapolis, Indiana, May 19-Judge John H. Baker of the United States District Court, has rendered a decision in which he holds that the heirs of Marion Tyler, who was lynched at Scottsburg several months ago, had a right for action for damages against the sheriff of the county and his bondsmen. The decision was rendered on a motion to overrule a demurrer to the complainant, James F. Gobin, the sheriff, and his bondsmen were required to answer the complaint within ten days. The case, which is for $25,000 damages, is expected to come to trial in about a month. In holding that a sheriff is responsible for the prisoners in his care, the court said: If the law imposes a duty of care in respect to animals and goods which he has taken into his possession, by virtue of his office, why should not the law impose the duty of care on him in respect to human beings who are in his custody by virtue of his office? Is a helpless prisoner in the custody of a sheriff less entitled to his care than a bale of goods or a dumb beast? The law is not subject o any such reproach. ____________________________________________________________________________ _______