Carson v. Dessau

• Decision Date: 05 June 1894
• Citation: 37 N.E. 493,142 N.Y. 445
• Parties: CARSON v. DESSAU.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

142 N.Y. 445

37 N.E. 493

CARSON

v.DESSAU.

Court of Appeals of New York.

June 5, 1894.

Appeal from superior court of New York city, general term.

Action by Sarah A. Carson against Simon Dessau for false imprisonment. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

L. A. Gould, for appellant.

Leon Lewin, for respondent.

ANDREWS, C. J.

We think the case should have been submitted to the jury upon the question whether the defendant acted in concert with David Dessau in procuring the arrest of the plaintiff, and aided or abetted it. The complaint was dismissed on the conclusion of the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff, and, if unexplained, it justified an inference that the defendant was a party to the unlawful arrest. The court should not have taken the case from the jury. Upon the uncontradicted proof, the plaintiff had a valid claim against the defendant, and went to his office to collect the bill. That the place where she went was the defendant's place of business was indicated by a sign containing his name. Finding the defendant there, she addressed him, asking payment of the bill. He made no reply, but his father, David Dessau (since deceased), whom the plaintiff did not know and had never seen before, interposed, and addressed her on the subject of the bill. The plaintiff said: ‘I am not addressing you; I am addressing the gentleman who owes me the bill,’-and then, again speaking to the defendant, said: ‘I hope you will pay me the gas bill, and not put me to any trouble.’ The defendant remained mute, and the plaintiff then said: ‘Well, the only thing, I can do is to state my case to the World, and see what they can do for me. I am too poor to lose that money.’ Thereupon, as the plaintiff testified, the defendant called to his father and whispered to him. The father said nothing, and his lips did not move. On the conclusion of the whispering, David Dessau directed a young man in the office to go for a detective, and turning to the plaintiff said: ‘Madam, be seated.’ An officer soon came, and the father said to him: ‘I want you to arrest that woman.’ The officer said, ‘What for?’ And he replied, ‘For blackmail; she has come to extort money from me, and I don't owe her any money. I don't know her; she is a stranger.’ The plaintiff protested that she was not liable to arrest; that she made no claim against David Dessau, but that her claim was against the defendant. The officer said something about preferring a charge, and David Dessau said: ‘I prefer the charge of blackmail.’ The plaintiff was compelled to go with the officer and David Dessau to the station house, and there the latter charged her with blackmail. She was taken below to a cell, and kept in the corridor till morning, when, on being brought before the justice the charge was changed to that of disorderly conduct, and she was fined $10, which she paid, and was thereupon discharged.

The arrest of the plaintiff was without warrant, on a charge of crime, when in fact, according to her testimony, no crime had been committed, and no reasonable ground for suspicion existed on the part of David Dessau, by whose...