*1 203 MISSOURI APPEAL REPORTS, Harris v. Association. employee inexperienced
hands un- of its who was skilled an him automobile and turned loose on the operate any learn without restrictions streets any supervision him or over him, without dangerous such automobile under circumstances ais said instrumentality, and that on account thereof defendant should he liable. held argument
Granting may such sake that acts negligence, in the constitute the evidence does case being support charge. of the said Instead of negligence, act of the record discloses that the defend- ant heretofore caused demonstrator stated, as accompany days McNamara so to teach him five operate the automobile.
It is therefore recommended the motion for rehearing be overruled. opinion foregoing
PER CURIAM: The of Biggs, Respond- adopted opinion C., Court. rehearing accordingly ent’s motion for overruled. Reynolds, J,. JJ., P. Allen and Becher, concur. Respondent, HARRIS, IDELLA TERMINAL RAIL- Appellant. LOUIS, ASSOCIATION OF ST. ROAD Appeals. Opinion February 3, Filed Court of Louis 1920. Agency: ARREST FALSE AND 1. IMPRISONMENT: Evidence: Employee. damages against at Direction of Arrest In an action for imprisonment a railroad association for false arrest aon c-barge larceny, evidence held sufficient to show employees direction of defendant’s regular performance employment. of his police officer, -: Arrest: What Constitutes. Where a at the employee denfendant, command of took arm held, her, stopped policeman stopped that when the her he her, and that such made at direction ' employee. OCTOBER TERM, v. Railroad plaintiff had Employee. Where Directed -: -: way proceeding followed and was left the railroad station *2 her, watching defendant, who employee was who of an supple- stop her, the followed officer to commanded copping grip the wanted for that she mental statement was equivalent circumstances, to station, such was held, arrest to her. a direction Requesting Actual Defenses: Arrest: Citizen -: Unofficial
4. gives information Only Justification. Ground of Where Guilt arrest, requests supposed make or even an officer offense investigates of arrest, he makes if the officer person ground the justified perpetrator the officer offense, arrest is the making of damages though liable arrest be offense, justifi- only guilty but the arrested is invoke, citizen unofficial could individual or cation which requests the arrest would officer to make he directs or where actually party guilty. was be Misstating In Grounds Justification. Not -: Instructions: imprisonment, an instruction that for false arrest an action jury the arrest. the defendant caused if believe plain- justification plea only excuse would be arrested, guilty and thai for which the crime tiff probable to entitle cause nor malice need shown neither want'of plaintiff probable or want since lack of malice to recover only mitigation damages, punitive in considered cause could be cause, probable defining this instruction does held also justification incorrectly in false arrest state the cases. action -: Arrest Justified Ground Guilt. In an
-:6. imprisonment, refusal arrest and court’s for false jury if find from the evidence and believe stolen, etc., mentioned the evidence was valise that plaintiff, plaintiff recover, held, error. then entitled to for False Error to Refuse Justification Arrest: INSTRUCTIONS: Theory Presenting Defendant’s case. In an action Instruction imprisonment, where introduced for false arrest testimony tending plaintiff guilty establish fact arrest, procured for which it was entitled theft theory properly presented law have its refusal to do so amounts reversible error. court’s Improperly Using Competent Instruction -: Word -:8. imprison- Error. In an action for false arrest and Reversible Not “competent” using ment, the word connection an instruction “evidence,” the in- the use this the word word with approved, not amount alone would is not held struction for a reversal. error call to such as would Railroad Association. Refusing Justifying 9. -: -: Error in Instruction Arrest: Not Cured That cause Eliminated Punitive One Probable Damages. imprisonment, In an action for false instruction that if defendant reasonable and cause they then believe stole suitcase any damages punitive together should not allow with punitive damages, the fact that the allow not to held cure refusing requested the error instruction that of the theft she could not recover. Appeal City from the oh Circuit Court of Louis. Judge.
—Hon. Thomas L. Anderson, Reversed and remanded. McChesney appellant. L. P. Howell
J.
*3
(1.)
overruling
The court erred in
the defendant’s
requested
instruction
nature of a
demurrer,
plaintiff
the close of the whole case, because the
did
against
not make out a case
in that
defendant,
there
plaintiff’s
no
is
or the
case
defendant’s
evidence
requested, suggested
case that the defendant
or caused
gave
merely
to be
but
arrested,
informa-
investigation,
tion
a
to
officer,
after an
who,
ground
suspect
found there
reasonable
plaintiff had committed a
crime,
arrested her.
(a)
giving
The mere
of information of what one
supposed
knows of
requesting
offense, without
thereby
giving
arrest,
make the
it
does
liable
one
imprisonment.
for false
App.
Lark Bande,
v.
4 Mo.
(b)
gives
supposed
Where
information
of-
requests
fense, or even
the officer to make an
if
investigates
the when he makes the
ground
suspect
arrest, and
is reasonable
person
perpetrator
arrested as the
of the offense, said
person
though
justified,
arrest
guilty
is
even
is
Wehmeyer
offense.
v.
150
Mulvihill,
Mo.
App.
206-207; Hanser v.
197,
Bieber,
(1)
behalf of both
conclusively
and the defendant showed
*4
place
nearly
street,
took
out on Market
two
the
away
the Union
R.
sec.
1909,
Station.
S.
blocks
Singleton
City
Co.,
Base Ball, etc.,
v.
5120;
Kansas
Dunleavy v.
S.
964;
Harris v.
tion to determine
not there
whether or
reason-
suspect plaintiff
having
canse
able.
committed
question. Wehmeyer
offense in
v. Mulvihill, 130 S. W.
Singleton
City
cited;
cases
Kansas
v.
supra;
Base Ball
Ahern
Co.,
v.
Missouri
Collins,
(4)
146;
Bieber,
Hanser
cause or of malice on only could proposition punitive damages, affect .Pand- jiris Dunlevy v. Wolferman, S. Hartman, W. (6) right S. cities officers W. warrant make without misdemeanors arrests presence, their is an extension not committed in right to arrest without warrant the common-law presence. felony In committed officer’s authorizing the construing the statute same the courts safeguard very throw careful to about the rights laying down the rule that, of individuals such an arrest lawful, make order to officer, arrest must making have had sufficient time *5 OCTOBER TERM, Harris v. Railroad Association. possession
facts Ms Mm canse to gnilt believe in tbe of tbe arrested; investigation been made before the arrest place; chargeable takes and that the officer is all with facts he or knew, have known conld diligence, use dne before he acts. Hanser v. Bieber, snpra; Wehmeyer supra. (7) (a) In- Mnlvihill, struction must together; be taken as a whole—read they fairly part and if state issue of the in some charge in such manner understood Telegraph this will be sufficient. Jackson v. W. U. Cyc. (b) 156 W. reviewing Co., S. A court a will verdict failure reverse submit jury issue necessarily where the verdict rendered against appellant finding included on issue. Cyc. (c) reviewing A court will not reverse for failure to jury submit an issue to the where verdict other could have been rendered the evidence, Cyc. supra; Magrane sustained rendered. 38 v. St. Ry. (8) & Co., S. .81 Louis S. W..1160. verdict damages, awarding of the actual not ex- anguish cessive, view facts mental suffered respondent. damages brought C. This NIPPER, action for against Idella Harris, the defendant, Terminal Railroad Louis, Association imprisonment. unlawful arrest and false suit This city instituted court circuit of St. Louis. alleges agents Plaintiff servants acting scope defendant, within the of their employment, city caused of St. charge larceny; Louis, that kept taken station, and fourteen compelled to hours listen vile cell, 'to and ob- language, songs, by scene conversation and and between appear prisoners and had to defedant other in a larceny; public trial on that she has greatly damaged good in her name and fame and *6 anguish, humiliation; mental mortification
suffered and instigated by charging and further action that’ this was malicious motives. general special
The denial, answer was a and plea wilfully -unlawfully and steal that suitcase contents, Mrs. Blanche a and Estes, city in the Station, said suitcase at Union was further Louis; and denied purpose mortifying for the or intention of humiliating her; -or she was a acting the honest that she officer, belief had stolen the suitcase.
The trial in the court below in a verdict resulted damages in the actual sum and $2500 damages. punitive entered Plaintiff afterwards $500 damages punitive judg- a leaving remittitur ment $2500’. for briefly day
The facts stated that on the are, 6th girl a November, colored was col- subscriptions paper. lecting over She had been on South Twentieth Union Street near Station collect- ing, when started to the back she which was office, at 2138 Market Street, located about 5:30 in evening. Midway went into the Union She Station proceeded the west side the station and to the on Eighteenth lavatory near the side the station; Street came out walked over to the Market she she proceeded station and out Street stairs of the up Street. After she had Markt walked station about a block say, away from the station, she someone heard “Stop policeman A took Woman.” her stopped her. At about that arm time, Hoesli, employ Station, a train caller Union in the at of de- policeman, scene reached and stated to the fendant, copping back Union Station “She’s wanted grip.” officer took her to the The back where station, employees lady stated she colored grip parcel who checked then taken she to the room, station, OCTOBER TERM, Harris v. Railroad following. day
kept She A. M. the 10:30 until bed, home and went to went was there released, perform her unable was in a condition nervous several weeks. duties good sustained The shows prior to reputation community she lived where Sunday member the church, arrest, and court clubs. records School social city showed St. Louis criminal correction of charge. acquitted The defend- tried and she was plain- testimony tending ant show introduced actually question, stolen tiff had suitcase *7 parcel room be- it in the and value longing checked $25, the defendant. judgment, de- verdict as aforesaid, After and the brings unsuccessfully and trial, fendant a new moved.for appeal. case here assignment Appellant’s error is, first to the demurrer evi- court should its sustained theory train Hoesli, caller, dence, police merely officer information furnished the making giving mere informa- arrest, supposed with- offense, what tion one knows giving the one requesting an make arrest, out does imprisonment, further that even 'and, false it liable for requests an arrest, officer to make where one suspect person reasonable is perpetrated is the arrest arrested crime, has” though person guilty justified, arrested even is noof offense. em- its
The defendant servants contends gave police ployees merely officer information, request its made the arrest without that the officer supported contention direction. This is testimony. proceeded left Union
"When Station way she Street, Market was followed her west on watching keeping some her, dis- Hoesli, who passed After she her. tance behind stop the officer her, commanded officer, Hoesli, equivalent which, the circumstances, under direction arrest her. direction, This staement or supplemental followed “She statement, station,” grip copping is at the wanted think We there was sufficient to show arrested direction at the regular employees, performance defendant’s of power employment. his was within She protested officer; innocence, her offered explain presence particular place at at that policeman time. The took her on over to Union Station. policeman stopped hold that We when her he that such arrested her, arrest made employee, [Singleton direction of Hoesli, City Ball Base Exhibition Kansas & 172 Mo. Co., App. 964.] c. l. S. W. 307, 157 gives to the further contention that, “where one
As supposed requests information or even offense, investigates officer to make if the officer arrest, he arrest, there is makes person ground perpetrator justified, said offense, though no offense,” true it is above stated conditions making damages, the arrest not be liable in *8 but not so to the individual. The officer would any liability, be if he had absolved grounds suspect that a to crime had been committed plaintiff, though may it turn afterwards guilty, only justification out that she not was but which the or citizen individual unofficial could invoke, party actually guilty. be that the would arrested is The whether of not as to the officer making grounds in arrest case had reasonable this plaintiff, the commission of is crime necessarily not for whether he us, before or not did grounds, only go have such reasonable question to the liability, of defend- officer’s ant’s. 333
OCTOBER TERM, Harris v. holding,
After that have, as we agent, Hoesli, direction defendant’s only grounds justification then is [Pandjiris guilty v. stealing the suitcase. 279; Bieber, Hartman, 196 Mo. S. Hanser 539, W. (Mo. App.) Putting, S. Mo. 326, W. Leve 1060.] complains numbered Defendant of instructions request, given by plaintiff’s also the court at 3, give instruction No. court’s refusal its plaintiff, told Instruction No, 2, jury, they believed if substance, only plea caused arrest justification plaintiff was would be that excuse arrested, for which she crime probable malice need be neither want nor. cause, plaintiff to to entitle the lack recover; shown only con- malice or be want cause could mitigation punitive damages, and defined sidered “probable urged that instruction does cause.” It this is justification correctly iu state the we think cases, instruction false objections appellant. subject made to complains refusal defendant further court’s follows: its No. which was instruction you “The court find instructs valise, believe from evidence mentioned stolen from Mrs. Blanche Estes evidence, plaintiff, then not entitled to recover your for defendant.” verdict correctly law This states given. principal This defense should plaintiff’s petition. defendant’s answer set out tending introduced to estab- Defendant some theory entitled to have and was lish this its fact, presented properly the court’s law so case error. refusal do amounts to reversible *9 plaintiff properly If had instructions presented theory, it would not have been
33é 203 MISSOURI APPEAL y. necessary give above set but such the. out; not [Northam (Mo.) Railroad, done. 227.] objects
Defendant to instruction 3,No. because of “competent” the use of word in connection with being upon word comment evidence, as evidence. approve We do in- the use of this this word alone truction, but not amount error to such this as would call for a As will reversal. have reverse we case on account of failure of this the court to defendant’s instruction No. and' as there will have suggest para- be we will a new last trial, graph plaintiff’s misleading instruction No. is3, confusing, jury may as have believed reading proof prima-facie proof it, conclusive plaintiff’s qualifying without innocence, some clause added this instruction. jury inasmuch
Plaintiff as contends told another instruction reason- probable able believe cause stole question, then'they suitcase in any should not allow punitive damages; and that did allow punitive damages, they have found defend- ant had no reasonable and to believe cause plaintiff guilty, necessarily finding found and that guilty; do think this but cured we under all the instructions for, errors above noted, jury may at the the arrest have believed that time defendant had no reasonable to believe made, may plaintiff guilty, case, trial of the guilty. been shown she re- noted, the For the Commissioner errors above judgment of the trial court re- commends that for a trial. cause remanded new versed and foregoing opinion of PER CURIAM: The Nipper, adopted opinion judg- court. C., of' accordingly court is reversed and ment of circuit Reynolds, trial. J., cause remanded for a new Allen :P. JJ., Becker, concur.