1 Lans. 74 | N.Y. Sup. Ct. | 1869
Present — Balcom, Boardman and Parker, JJ.
By the Court
The bastard child of Lydia A. West was bom, according to the evidence of Susan Layton, in the town of Richfield, in the county of Otsego, on the 21st
It was held in Wallsworth v. McCullough (10 Johns., 93), that a justice of the peace is liable to an action for false imprisonment for issuing a warrant, by virtue of which the putative father of a bastard child is arrested, upon the application of an attorney who was not authorized by the overseers of the poor to make the application.
That case sustains the charge to the jury in this, that the defendants were liable to the plaintiff for his arrests and imprisonments. (See, also, Reynolds v. Orvis, 7 Cow., 269 ; Bigelow v. Stearns, 19 Johns., 39.)
There was no evidence to impute bad faith to the defendants ; and the proper inference from the evidence is, that they acted honestly, and under the belief that all they did, in the proceedings against the plaintiff, was in the proper discharge of their duties as public officers.
The evidence showed that the plaintiff paid thirty-three dollars, or over, to counsel in the proceedings in which he was arrested, besides some other expenses ; and that his time was worth $2.50 per day, during the days he was under arrest.
The verdict of the jury was for only fifty-six dollars damages; and I am of the opinion the jury only awarded actual damages to the plaintiff.
If I am right in this conclusion, the supposed error of the judge, in rejecting the defendants’ offer to show that Justice Eccleston was advised, by counsel employed by the other defendants, that he had a right to issue the second warrant, did not affect the defendants on the question of damages.
The judge charged the jury, in substance, that the proceedings of the defendants were properly in evidence for the purpose of showing that they acted in perfect good faith, and in pursuance of what they supposed was their duty, and that, therefore, they should not be visited with smart money; and
My conclusion is, that no error was committed on the trial to the prejudice of the defendants; and that their motion for a new trial should he denied, with costs.
So decided.