Harris v. Terminal R. Ass'n

• Decision Date: 03 February 1920
• Docket Number: No. 15642.,15642.
• Parties: HARRIS v. TERMINAL R. ASS'N OF ST. LOUIS.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

218 S.W. 686

203 Mo. App. 324

HARRIS v. TERMINAL R. ASS'N OF ST. LOUIS.

No. 15642.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

February 3, 1920.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Thomas L. Anderson, Judge.

Action by Idella Harris against the Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed, and cause remanded.

J. L. Howell and S. P. McChesney, both of St. Louis, for appellant.

Geo. L. Vaughn, of St. Louis, for respondent.

NIPPER, C.

This is an action for damages brought by the plaintiff, Idella Harris, against the defendant, Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis, for unlawful arrest and false imprisonment. This suit was if stituted in the circuit court of the city o St. Louis.

Plaintiff alleges that the agents and servants of the defendant, while acting within the scope of their employment, caused a police officer of the city of St. Louis, to arrest her upon a charge of larceny, that she was taken to the police station, and kept for 14 hours in a cell, and compelled to listen to vile and obscene language, conversation, and songs by and between other prisoners, and had to appear as defendant in a public trial on a charge of larceny, that she has been greatly damaged in her good name and frame and suffered mental anguish, mortification and humiliation, and charging further that this action was instigated by malicious motives.

The answer was a general denial and the special plea that the plaintiff did willfully and unlawfully steal from Mrs. Blanche Estes a suit case and contents, while said suit case was at Union Station in the city of St. Louis, and further denied that plaintiff was arrested for the purpose or intention of mortifying or humiliating her; that she was arrested by a police officer, acting under the honest belief that she had stolen the suit case.

The trial in the court below resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $2,500 actual damages and $500 punitive damages: Plaintiff afterwards entered a remittitur of the punitive damages, leaving the judgment for $2,500.

The facts, briefly stated, are that on the 6th day of November, 1914, the plaintiff, colored girl, was collecting subscriptions for a paper. She had been over on South Twentieth street near Union Station collecting and when she started back to the office, which was located at 2138 Market street, it was about 5:30 in the evening. She went into the Union Station Midway on the west side of the station and proceeded to the lavatory, near the Eighteenth street side of the station. When she came out she walked over to the Market street stairs of the station and proceeded out of the station and on up Market street. After she had walked about a block away from the station she heard some one say, "Stop that woman !" A policeman took her by the arm and stopped her. At about that time Hoesli, a train caller at Union Station, in the employ of defendant reached the scene and stated to the police-man, "She's wanted back at Union Station for copping a grip." The officer took her back to the station, where defendant's employés stated she was the colored lady why had checked the grip in question in the parcel room, and she was then taken to the police station, and kept there until 10:30 a. m. the day following. She was then released, went home and went to bed, and was in a nervous condition and unable to perform her duties for several weeks.

The testimony shows that she sustained a good reputation in the community where she lived prior to her arrest, and was a member of the church, Sunday school, and social clubs. The records of the court of criminal correction of the city of St. Louis showed that she was tried and acquitted of this charge. The defendant introduced testimony tending to show that the plaintiff had actually stolen the suit case in question, of the value of $25, and checked it in the parcel room belonging to the defendant.

After the verdict and judgment as aforesaid, defendant unsuccessfully moved for a new trial, and brings this case here by appeal.

Appellant's first assignment of error is that the court should have sustained its demurrer to the evidence upon the theory that the train caller, Hoesli, merely furnished the information to the police officer making the arrest, and that the mere giving of information of what one knows of a supposed offense, without requesting an arrest, does not make the one giving it liable for false imprisonment, and, further, that even where one requests an officer to make an arrest, if there is reasonable ground to suspect the person arrested has perpetrated the crime, the arrest is justified, even though the person arrested is guilty of no offense.

The defendant contends that its servants and employés merely gave the police officer information, and that the officer made the arrest without its request or direction. This contention is not supported by the testimony.

When plaintiff left Union Station and proceeded on her way west on Market street, she was followed by Hoesli, who was watching her, and keeping some distance behind her. After she had passed the police officer, Hoesli commanded the officer to stop her, which, under the circumstances, was equivalent to a direction to arrest her. This statement or direction was followed by the supplemental statement, "She is wanted for copping a grip at the station."

We think there was sufficient testimony to show that plaintiff was arrested at the direction of one of defendant's...