Tort. Writ dated June 11, 1873. The first count of the declaration alleged that the defendant maliciously and without probable cause procured the arrest of the plaintiff, on a writ in a civil action, and caused to be extorted from him the sum of $162.

The second count alleged the suing out of a writ by the defendant, “ for a private and unlawful purpose of his own, to wit, for the purpose of obtaining from the plaintiff a certain large sum of money,” under the color of a legal claim; the arrest of the plaintiff under said writ, and his imprisonment for the space of three hours, “ whereby the defendant did make an unlawful use and an abuse of the legal process ” of said court, “ and by said abuse of legal process did subject the plaintiff to great loss and damage in his business and reputation, and oblige him to deliver to the defendant a large sum of money, to wit, the sum of $162.”

The third count was as follows: “ And the plaintiff further says that the defendant by himself, his agents and servants, and with force and arms at Boston aforesaid, assaulted the plaintiff and caused him to be illegally arrested, imprisoned and detained for a long time, to wit, for three hours, until to gain his liberty he was compelled by the defendant, his agents and servants aforesaid, to deliver to him, the defendant, his agents and servants aforesaid, a large sum of money, to wit, $162; and the plaintiff says that the defendant had no cause of complaint against him, criminal or civil, whereupon he could lawfully predicate any such arrest, imprisonment and detention and extortion of money; and the plaintiff further says that by such arrest, imprisonment and detention, and by the extortion aforesaid, his business was greatly impeded, he was subjected to great inconvenience and expense, his reputation was much injured, and he suffered great vexation, grief and oppression. All which is to the special damage of the said plaintiff as he says the sum of three thousand dollars.”

At the trial in the Superior Court, before Bacon, J., the evidence was that the plaintiff hired of the defendant a store, the rent of which was payable monthly; that the plaintiff having sold out his stock, and being about to gc to Europe, the defend* ant, on June 9, 1873, by advice of counsel, caused the plaintiff to be arrested on a writ of the same date, although the rent was not due till June 14, 1873; that the officer arrested the plaintiff and detained him for about two hours, and then released him upon his furnishing a sum of money,, which the officer took and held, as he claimed in his return, by attachment.

There was no claim made that the officer in any way abused his authority under said writ, or was guilty of any misconduct in the service thereof, but only that the defendant knew he had no cause of action, and sued out said writ with such knowledge, and directed the service made thereon. So far as the form of the writ was concerned, the officer was justified in the arrest.

…

Citation profile

Relationships

How this case has been treated — in progress