money drawer of the defendant. To this evidence the plaintiff objected on the ground that, it appearing that he had been discharged from the said imprisonment without being taken before a magistrate, the defendant ought not to be allowed, without producing the warrant, to go into paroi proof to show probable cause, or that the arrest was justifiable in its inception, the warrant not having been returned into court, and not being produced, although the plaintiff had notified the defendant to produce it. But the court overruled the plaintiff’s objection, and the defendant introduced in evidence circumstances tending to show the taking of money as aforesaid,” and other evidence tending to show that the plaintiff was spending more than his honest income.

The plaintiff requested the court to instruct the jury, amongst other things, as follows:

“ That, if they find that the plaintiff was arrested by a legal warrant, yet if they find he was released therefrom for a pecuniary consideration without being brought before a magistrate in due form of law, such arrest and detention would be regarded in law as a false imprisonment; and if the defendant knowingly participated in such arrest and release, by instigating the prosecution and receiving the consideration, he would be regarded as a trespasser ab initia; and that if the plaintiff executed the release while under such arrest and detention, through fear of being committed to jail or of exposure to a public trial, then in that case the jury may regard it as having been executed under duress and as being void, if they find that the plaintiff was released without being brought before the magistrate, the warrant not being properly returned.

“ That if they find that the defendant complained against the plaintiff to the city marshal, and after the arrest knowingly consented to the plaintiff’s discharge from imprisonment by accepting a pecuniary consideration therefor, it was on his part a tortious act, and that the release executed by the plaintiff while held under such arrest and detention may be regarded by them as void in law, if they find that the plaintiff signed it through fear of being sent to jail or exposure to a public accusation or trial.”

The judge declined to give these instructions, and instead thereof instructed the jury that “if the plaintiff was arrested under a legal warrant and by a proper officer, yet if one of the objects of the arrest was thereby to extort money or property from him, or to enforce the settlement of a civil claim, such arrest would be a false imprisonment by all who directly or indirectly procured the same or participated therein for any such purpose; and if said release was obtained by means of such arrest it would be void; that the release of the plaintiff from the arrest without examination, and the want of return of the warrant and the participation of the defendant in this, if such were the facts, were circumstances to be considered by the jury as bearing upon the question of duress, and whether the release was thereby obtained.”

The jury returned a verdict .for thé defendant, and the plaintiff alleged exceptions.

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress