Farrell v. St. Louis Transit Co.

• Citation: 103 Mo. App. 454,78 S.W. 312
• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
• Decision Date: 01 December 1903
• Parties: FARRELL v. ST. LOUIS TRANSIT CO.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL>

78 S.W. 312

103 Mo. App. 454

FARRELL v. ST. LOUIS TRANSIT CO.^*

Court of Appeals at St. Louis, Missouri.

December 1, 1903.

NEW TRIALS—DISCRETION OF TRIAL COURT— MALICIOUS PROSECUTION—DAMAGES —EXCESSIVE VERDICTS.

1. The granting of new trials rests peculiarly within the sound discretion of the trial court.

2. In circuit courts is vested the authority and the duty to supervise verdicts, and to grant new trials if the verdict is improper or not sustained by the evidence.

3. In an action for malicious prosecution, although plaintiff's evidence established his high character, and unjust denouncement by defendant's servants upon the charge of breach of the peace, and their detention of him prior to arrest, his release on bail, and discharge after trial, coupled with unprovoked and unjustified insult, so that plaintiff was entitled to liberal redress and punitive damages, a verdict for $1,500 actual damages and $1,000 exemplary damages was excessive.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Jesse A. McDonald, Judge.

Action by James Farrell against the St. Louis Transit Company. There was verdict for plaintiff, and from an order granting defendant a new trial plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Paxson & Clark, for appellant. Boyle, Priest & Lehman, for respondent.

REYBURN, J.

Plaintiff, on the evening of March 14, 1902, between 6 and 7 o'clock, was a passenger on a car of defendant on his way homeward. At a point just beyond Lee avenue, on Prairie avenue, the conductor gave an order that the car be vacated by all passengers, which they complied with, and walked forward to the first of several other cars ahead, where they were informed by the motorman that he was behind time, and would not go on, and the several cars then backed down to the car sheds. With about 15 other passengers emptied out of these cars, plaintiff proceeded to await the arrival of another car, being still about three-quarters of a mile from his destination. The first car to arrive, in response to a signal, slackened speed, but without stopping, and some one of the waiting passengers threw a handful of pebbles against the windows; and as another car arrived five minutes later, some man in the crowd, a stranger to plaintiff, saying, "This car will stop," picked up a rock, and as the car was about to pass as the preceding one had, threw it through a car window, whereupon the motorman stopped the car, and the group of passengers got on board, and as plaintiff was about to enter the motorman and conductor accused him of being the man who threw the stone. He denied the charge, and pointed out a man going down the street as the responsible party. Ultimately they permitted him to get on the car, stating they would have him arrested at Newstead avenue, where they sent for a policeman, and put him under arrest, and the officer, accompanied by one or more of defendant's employés, took him to the Grand avenue police station, where he was searched, a charge of disturbing the peace lodged against him, and after detention there less than an hour he gave bond and was released. On the 20th of March, 1902, plaintiff was arraigned, tried, and found not guilty, in the Second District Police Court of the city of St. Louis, of the charge of disturbing the peace.

Stripped of matters in aggravation, consisting of grossly abusive conduct towards him on part of defendant's servants while plaintiff was detained by them pending the arrival of the officer, and somewhat abridged, the foregoing narrative presents a fair statement of the transaction from which this action for damages for malicious prosecution emanated, and the plaintiff's narrative of which was fully established in all important details by the corroborative testimony of disinterested witnesses. Defendant offered no testimony, and a jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for...