Carroll v. Central R. Co. of New Jersey

• Decision Date: 26 January 1905
• Docket Number: 59.
• Citation: 134 F. 684
• Parties: CARROLL v. CENTRAL R. CO. OF NEW JERSEY.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

134 F. 684

CARROLL v. CENTRAL R. CO. OF NEW JERSEY.

No. 59.

United States Circuit Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

January 26, 1905

T Foster Thomas, for plaintiff.

Arthur G. Dickson and William A. Glasgow, Jr., for defendant.

HOLLAND District Judge.

Winfield Carroll, the plaintiff in this case, was arrested for an alleged larceny of goods from a freight train of the defendant company on the 13th day of July, 1903. A hearing was had before a magistrate in Bethlehem, Lehigh county, Pa and he was held for court upon the charge made against him. Subsequently a grand jury indicted him for this offense, and he was tried, with four other persons, before a jury of that county. At the trial of the case, after the evidence had been submitted for the prosecution, by agreement with the district attorney the court instructed the jury to acquit the defendant. Two of the other defendants were convicted of the offense. Carroll then brought suit in this district against the defendant railroad company, whose agent made the arrest for malicious prosecution; and at the trial of the case all the facts in connection with his arrest, trial, and acquittal were given by the plaintiff and his witnesses for the purpose of showing the termination of the criminal prosecution and the want of probable cause. The evidence for the defense was to the effect that Carroll had been seen in this vicinity by the agent who swore out the warrant, in company with the men who had been arrested and tried with him on the criminal charge, near the railroad, about a fire, warming themselves a day or two before the car was robbed, and was in company with these men when arrested. It was also established by the agent who made the arrest that upon his investigation he ascertained from a reputable witness, a citizen and resident in the town of Bethlehem, that he was sitting at his window the night of the robbery, and saw Carroll, about 3 o'clock in the morning, in company with three other men, who had the goods in their possession, and saw him divide some of the goods with one of them, in front of witness' window. It was also shown that Carroll was a resident of Philadelphia, and his presence and association at the place of robbery were such as to fairly warrant the agent in assuming the correctness of the information obtained in his investigation prior to the arrest. In fact, the evidence fully established the fact that the officer acted with prudence and caution, and was fully justified in swearing out the warrant and arresting Carroll. This was fairly submitted to the jury on the question as to probable cause, and the jury found in favor of the defendant.

The reasons assigned for a new trial are: (1) The verdict was against the law and the weight of the evidence. (2) Error to the ruling of the court in permitting the defendant to show what occurred at the trial of the criminal case against the plaintiff in Allentown, and that the court instructed the jury in that case to acquit the defendant; two of the other defendants changing their plea from that of not guilty to that of guilty. (3) Error to the charge of the court in instructing the jury as follows: 'It is not necessary after he has been arrested and tried, that that person shall secure a conviction, because the matter of a conviction is entirely outside of the question of probable cause.' (4) In refusing to allow the plaintiff to prove his good character. (5) Because the court ...