28 Iowa 529 | Iowa | 1870
The testimony in this case tended to show that a horse had been stolen from the defendant in Black ITawk county, about April 22,1867, by a man bearing the name of James Allen; that the defendant was absent from home at the time and never saw the thief. Hpon his return, and on April 27, he filed an information before a justice of the peace, accusing James Allen of the crime of horse-stealing, and procured a warrant to be issued. He also advertised the larceny, giving also a description of the horse stolen and of the thief. About May 25, 1867, hearing that a man by the name of Allen, answering substantially the description given of the thief, was in Oedar Rapids, he, with his hired man who had seen the thief, took the warrant and went there. The hired man expressed it as his opinion that the plaintiff was the thief; and thereupon the defendant caused him to be arrested, handcuffed, and taken, with considerable delay, severity of restraint and exposure, to Waterloo. After detaining him a day or so there, the defendant
There was no error in the modification. If the plaint'iff was the party against whom the information was filed, and for whose arrest the warrant was issued, although there was a mistake in his name, he could not recover as for false imprisonment or for assault and battery, done under the authority of the process, even if innocent of the offense charged. His remedy in such case must be by a suit for malicious prosecution, or other like action.
The instruction as asked should have been given; at least, it does not state the law too strongly for the plaintiff. If the defendant, having no warrant for the arrest of plaintiff, was guilty of gross negligence in causing 'him to be arrested, and also did it without reasonable cause to believe that he was the person who committed the offense, surely the defendant would be liable without any proof of malice. The proof of malice under such circumstances was not necessary to make out a cause of action, although it might be proved to enhance the damages. It was error to refuse the instruction as asked ; the alteration was error, as was also the giving as altered.
The same alteration was made of the third instructions . asked by plaintiff as to the excess of necessary restraint and exposure of him in carrying him from the place of arrest to the place of trial, and was also and alike eri’oneous.
The defendant asked and the court gave ten instructions in relation to the law governing actions for malicious prosecution. Without stating them at length or reviewing their correctness as applicable to that action, we need
Reversed.