Baldwin v. Murphy
| Decision Date | 30 September 1876 |
| Citation | 82 Ill. 485,1876 WL 10235 |
| Parties | EZRA S. BALDWINv.M. S. MURPHY et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Jo Daviess county; the Hon. WILLIAM BROWN, Judge, presiding.
Mr. M. MARVIN, Mr. H. B. AMERLING, and Mr. E. L. BEDFORD, for the appellant.
Mr. J. W. LUKE, for the appellees.
The record in this case shows that appellant was a druggist in the town of Warren, in the county of Jo Daviess, in this State. On the 17th of December, 1874, one Jesse Wells filed a complaint, under oath, that, as he verily believed, appellant had violated an ordinance of the town by selling or giving away intoxicating liquors. The police magistrate thereupon issued a capias for the body of appellant, returnable forthwith, and delivered it to a constable of the town to execute. It was returned served by reading to the defendant, and he appeared before the police magistrate on the same day. The entry on the docket is this: “Defendant came into court and confessed himself guilty to the complaint, and authorized the court to fine him for the same, whereupon it is considered by the court that the defendant pay a fine of $100, and costs of suit, taxed at $4.55.”
Defendant afterwards filed a bill to enjoin the collection of this judgment. The bill alleges that the magistrate had no jurisdiction to render the judgment, and all the proceedings in the case were void; that appellant was under duress and restraint of his liberty, and did not voluntarily consent to the judgment against him; that the charter of the town only authorized a recovery of fines and penalties by an action of debt; that the ordinance of the town prescribed a penalty of not less than $25 nor more than $100 for each of such offenses; that the magistrate issued an execution on the judgment on the 27th day of February, 1875, and delivered the same to a constable to collect, who had levied it on the goods and chattels of appellant, and had advertised them for sale under the execution.
The answer admits the filing of the complaint, the issuing of the warrant and its delivery to the constable; but it is denied that appellant was arrested by the constable, but that the warrant was read to him, and he was not taken into custody. It admits the rendition of the judgment, the issuing of the execution, its levy, and advertisement for the sale of the property, etc.
On a hearing on bill, answer and proofs, the court below dismissed the bill, and from that decree complainant appeals, and assigns various errors.
We fail to perceive the slightest ground for maintaining this bill. All there is of it is, that a warrant was sued out for the arrest of appellant, for the violation of an ordinance, which was read to him, and he was requested to go to the police magistrate's office, which he did. When he arrived there, he pleaded guilty to the charge, and requested that officer to enter the fine. Now, this is the substance of the whole matter, and how it can be held to be a false arrest, or an imprisonment, or the compelling appellant, under duress, to confess a breach of the ordinance, is to us incomprehensible.
Appellant did not testify that the constable arrested him. He says that the officer went to his store and read the warrant to him, and said he must go to the magistrate's office, but on his requesting time to wait on customers, it was granted, and the officer left on his promising to go to the magistrate's office; that he went and saw the attorney for the town, who threatened him with other prosecutions if he would not settle the case by confessing judgment for $100; but he says he felt like he was arrested.
The constable testified that he did not arrest appellant; that he read the warrant to him, and appellant asked the constable if he wanted him to go at once, and he replied, to try and get there in the course of twenty minutes or half an hour, and that he left and went to subpœna witnesses in the case. This is corroborated by the officer's return. It states that he served the warrant by reading, but there is not a word about an arrest. The constable testified that he would not have arrested him on that warrant without first taking counsel. This is all the pretense that an arrest was made, and we do not see that it has any semblance of an arrest.
As to the coercion to compel appellant to confess the judgment, the evidence shows it is equally baseless. It is true, he talked with the town attorney, and he says that officer threatened to commence other prosecutions if he did not settle the case, and he admits that he consented that the judgment might be entered. The justice testified that he informed appellant that he could have a trial if he desired it, and could...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Huston v. Smith
...deed was executed reluctantly and after some threats had been made was insufficient to establish undue influence or duress. See Baldwin v. Murphy, 82 Ill. 485.’ In the Hagan Case, supra, a bill was filed to set aside a deed to a daughter. This court, speaking through Mr. Justice Craig, on p......
-
City of Chicago v. Union Ice Cream Mfg. Co.
...punishable in a different way by the authorized ordinances of a municipal corporation. See also, Robbins v. People, 95 Ill. 175;Baldwin v. Murphy, 82 Ill. 485;Seibold v. People, 86 Ill. 33;Hankins v. People, 106 Ill. 628. [7] Municipal authorities cannot, under a general grant of power, suc......
-
Kistler v. City of Warren
... ... Town of Van Buren v. Wells, 53 Ark. 368, 14 S.W. 38; ... State v. Ludwig, 21 Minn. 202; City of Quincy v ... O'Brien, 24 Ill.App. 591; Baldwin v ... Murphy, 82 Ill. 485; and City of Lorain v. Maraldi, 19 ... O.C.C.(N.S.), 58, affirmed by Supreme Court, without opinion, ... Maraldi v ... ...
-
The Bangor Furnace Co. v. Charles J. Magill.
...v. Altum, 1 Scam, 250; Long v. Trabue, 8 Bradw. 132; Knott v. Pepperdine, 63 Ill. 219; Mineral Point R. R. Co. v. Keep, 22 Id. 9; Baldwin v. Murphy, 82 Ill. 485. The defendant, by filing its plea of the general issue, waived its demurrer. Cobb v. Ingalls, Beecher's Breese, 233; Ferguson v. ......