Cornwell v. St. Louis Transit Co.

• Decision Date: 17 March 1903
• Citation: 100 Mo. App. 258,73 S.W. 305
• Parties: CORNWELL v. ST. LOUIS TRANSIT CO.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

73 S.W. 305

100 Mo. App. 258

CORNWELL v. ST. LOUIS TRANSIT CO.

Court of Appeals at St. Louis, Missouri.

March 17, 1903.

REWARDS FOR ARREST AND CONVICTION— RIGHT OF OFFICER.

1. Defendant offered a reward for the arrest and conviction of any person doing a certain act. Plaintiff was a member of the sheriff's posse when he made an arrest, so that he could not claim a reward for this, but he was discharged from the posse, and defendant then renewed the promise, and he then secured the conviction. Held, that he was entitled to the reward.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Franklin Ferris, Judge.

Action by Charles J. Cornwell against the St. Louis Transit Company. Plaintiff was granted a new trial, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Morton Jourdan, for appellant. Richard A. Jones, for respondent.

REYBURN, J.

The facts disclosed by the testimony in this case are that appellant caused to be inserted on May 24, 1900, in the Globe Democrat and in the St. Louis Republic, respectively, the following advertisements:

"$250 reward will be paid for the arrest and conviction of any person who may threaten with violence or intimidate or attempt to intimidate any person now employed by the St. Louis Transit Company for the purpose of deterring any such person from continuing in such employment.

                  "St. Louis Transit Company
                    "Edwards Whitaker, President."
                

"$250 reward will be paid for the arrest and conviction of any person who may throw any missiles at any car or any person engaged in the service of the St. Louis Transit Company.

                  "St. Louis Transit Company
                    "Edwards Whitaker, President."
                

In June, 1900, respondent, then a member of the sheriff's posse comitatus, together with S. G. Burr, arrested one Thomas Daly, in the city of St. Louis, for shooting at a car of the transit company, and had him locked up in the Four Courts. Respondent then swore out a warrant against him in the court of criminal correction. Afterwards respondent proceeded to the office of the president of the appellant, and was referred to the office of Boyle, Priest & Lehmann, and by Lehmann again referred to Morton Jourdan, and accordingly, accompanied by Burr, Cornwell called at the office of Jourdan, whom they informed of the arrest of Daly, and that a warrant had been issued against him for shooting at a car, and inquired, if they convicted him, if they would be entitled to a reward, and Jourdan replied they would, and that they would be only too glad to pay the reward, but what they wanted above all things was the conviction. A day or two later respondent was discharged from the posse, and appeared at the court of criminal correction at the trial of Daly, which resulted in his conviction. He then reported to Jourdan that, with the testimony of Burr and himself, he had secured a conviction of Daly, but Jourdan said he could do nothing until they exhibited to him a certified copy of the conviction, which they obtained at their expense and submitted, and, after inspecting it, Jourdan said: "Well now, gentlemen, you understand this is a partial conviction; that the man has one of two courses to pursue: First, to ask for a new trial; and, second, to go into the Court of Appeals. I have not time to-day, but, if you will meet me tomorrow at some hour in the morning, I will look that up for you when I am up there, and, if he does not do either one, we will pay the reward the next morning." Respondent, Burr, and Jourdan met the day following at the court of criminal correction, and Jourdan stated to them that Daly had asked for a new trial, and had changed attorneys, and said further: "Well, my advice to you is to employ an attorney now to look after your case, from the fact that he has one of the best criminal lawyers in St. Louis." Respondent then tendered employment to Jourdan, which he declined, stating that, if they employed an attorney and finally convicted the man, they would pay the reward. Respondent and Burr, acting upon this advice, employed counsel to look after the case, and paid $10 filing fee in the proceeding against Daly, which had been appealed to the St. Louis Court of Appeals, and afterwards a motion to dismiss the appeal, prepared by counse...