10 Colo. App. 532 | Colo. Ct. App. | 1898
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is an action for false imprisonment. The defendant,
There was some disagreement between the witnesses for the plaintiff, and those for the defendant, concerning the facts and circumstances of the arrest; but the jury by their verdict settled the questions of fact in favor of the plaintiff, and we are concluded by their finding. For the purposes of this decision we must therefore accept the testimony given for the plaintiff as true. According to that testimony the defendant pointed out the plaintiff to the officer, and directed his arrest as one of the men who had been guilty of the assault. He also directed the arrest of the other two men. The officer, in compliance with the plaintiff’s instructions, arrested the defendant and the others, and took them all to the office of the justice. The defendant was therefore directly responsible for the arrest of the plaintiff. The defendant accompanied the officer and the arrested parties to the justice’s office, and there made a sworn complaint against-L. C. Biggar, John Burke and M. Reynolds, charging each and all of them with feloniously making an assault upon him-with a deadly weapon with the intent to murder him. Big-gar and Burke were the two men brought to the justice’s office with the plaintiff. The justice then issued his warrant for the arrest of the persons named in the complaint, Biggar, Burke and Reynolds; and the plaintiff, with the others was handcuffed and taken to jail.
Error is assigned to the court’s refusal to give other rnstructions asked by the defendant. They authorized the jury, if they believed from the evidence that Harris, in the exercise of ordinary caution and prudence, entertained an honest and strong suspicion that the plaintiff was connected with the felonious attack made upon him, to find a verdict for Harris. Concedmg that in the abstract the mstruetions cor
Error is assigned as follows to instructions given: “ The court erred in giving to the jury over the' objection and exception of the defendant, instruction number and as given by the court.” The court instructed the' jury orally, consequently there were no separately numbered instructions. This assignment calls our attention to nothing, and in view of the manner in which the instructions were given, it means nothing. It must therefore be ignored.
The complaint and warrant which, as they were originally drawn, were against Reynolds, were, some time after the warrant was served, altered so as to make the name Reynolds read McReynolds; and the court permitted parol evidence of the alteration to be introduced. Counsel say that this ruling was erroneous. The subsequent alteration of the papers' could not convert an unlawful arrest into a lawful one; and if when this cause was tried they had been changed so as to appear regular and proper, to refuse the plaintiff permission to prove what they were when he was handcuffed and taken to prison, would be to deny him justice. The fact of the insertion of the plaintiff’s name in the papers after the process was issued, could be proved only by parol, and we think the evidence was properly received. Rafferty v. People, 69 Ill. 111.
We find no error in the record and affirm the judgment.
Affirmed.