Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

63 Me. 49

Gee v. Patterson

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided July 1, 1873

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · decided 1873-07-01

<p> What justifies arrest on mesne process for debt. </p> <p>In an action for false imprisonment of tbe plaintiff, procured by the defendant’s affidavit that he believed the plaintiff was about to leave the State, &e., (under B. S., c. 113, § 2,) a verdict for the plaintiff will not be set aside as against the weight of evidence, if it be apparent that the defendant did actually believe these statements in his affidavit, unless it be also evident that he had reason so to believe-.</p> <p>A verdict of $600 held not plainly excessive in this case.</p>

Decided 1873-07-01

¶1Rescript.

¶2Qase, for damages alleged to have arisen from imprisonment on mesne process on contract — this defendant (the plaintiff in the original action) having made the oath prescribed in R. S., c. 113, §2.

¶3The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for $600, which the defendant moves .to set aside for the alleged reasons that it is against the weight of evidence and that the damages awarded are excessive.

¶4The jury must have found either that the defendant did not “have reason to believe,” or did not “believe, that the plaintiff was about to depart and reside beyond the limits of the State” &c. Taking it for granted that the jury believed the defendant’s, testimony as to his actual belief, we do not think the testimony in relation to his “reason to believe” is so preponderant as to warrant us in disturbing the verdict for that reason.

¶5Nor can we say under all the circumstances disclosed by the evidence — the time and manner of arrest and the animus shown by the defendant’s letter — as well as by the evidence of actual injury — that the damages are excessive. Motion overruled.

/63/me/49 · .json · Public domain