Eldredge v. Mitchell
| Decision Date | 22 May 1913 |
| Citation | 214 Mass. 480,102 N.E. 69 |
| Parties | ELDREDGE v. MITCHELL et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
J. J Feely and Roger Clapp, both of Boston, for plaintiff.
Geo. L Mayberry and Lowell A. Mayberry, both of Boston, for defendant Eugene Mitchell.
Geo. F James, of Boston, for defendant Wm. B. Mitchell.
DE COURCY, J.
In this action for assault and battery the defendants pleaded in justification that they were police officers of the town of Hull, and that they used only such force as was necessary in making a lawful arrest of the plaintiff. There was a verdict for the plaintiff; and the case is here on three exceptions taken by the defendants.
1. The court rightly instructed the jury that unless they found that the plaintiff was drunk at the time of the arrest, the defendants had shown no justification and there was no defence to the action for assault. The arrest was made without a warrant. The defendant Eugene Mitchell, who made the complaint against Eldredge for drunkenness and assault on an officer, testified that he made the arrest for drunkenness and nothing else, and that the charge of assault was made for acts alleged to have been done while the officers were arresting him for drunkenness. Clearly, if Eldredge was not in fact drunk at the time, the arrest without a warrant and the assault in connection therewith were without justification in law and made the officers liable.
2. The instruction requested by the defendants was not applicable to the evidence in the case, which shows that the arrest was made for the offence of drunkenness. Furthermore, in the absence of any special statutory authority, they had no right to arrest without a warrant upon mere information that assaults had been committed by Eldredge on the day before. Com. v. Ruggles, 6 Allen, 588; Com. v. Carey, 12 Cush. 246; Scott v. Eldridge, 154 Mass. 25, 27 N.E. 677, 12 L. R. A. 379. And there was nothing in the evidence to call for an instruction as to the right of a constable to arrest without a warrant for the purpose of preventing an imminent breach of the peace. It is needless to add that the court could not properly instruct the jury, as the defendants requested, that the officers would be justified in arresting Eldredge on the ground that they believed that he was 'a dangerous person to leave at large.'
3. The verification of the accuracy of the photograph rested with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Alaniz
...204 S.W.2d 945, 947; State v. Zupan, 155 Wash. 80, 283 P. 671, 674; People v. Guertins, 224 Mich. 8, 194 N.W. 561, 562; Eldredge v. Mitchell, 214 Mass. 480, 102 N.E. 69; Merwin v. State, Okl. Cr., 277 P.2d 208, 211; State v. Arregui, 44 Idaho 43, 254 P. 788, 793-794, 52 A.L.R. 463. Reasonab......
-
Commonwealth v. Gorman
...9 Metc. 259, 263;Leddy v. Crossman, 108 Mass. 237;Scott v. Eldridge, 154 Mass. 25, 27 N. E. 677,12 L. R. A. 379;Eldredge v. Mitchell, 214 Mass. 480, 483, 102 N. E. 69; Price v. Seeley, 10 Cl. & F. 28; R. v. Light, 7 Cox C. C. 389. See, also, Am. Low Inst. Restatement, Torts, §§ 119, 121, 14......
-
Commonwealth v. Sheppard
...photograph rested largely in his discretion. Everson v. Casualty Co. of America, 208 Mass. 214, 219, 220, 94 N.E. 459;Eldredge v. Mitchell, 214 Mass. 480, 483, 102 N.E. 69. It was not to be excluded merely because it depicted something gruesome, or because it might have tended to produce lo......
-
Commonwealth v. Housen
...were a fair and accurate representation of the victim's wounds could have authenticated the photographs. See Eldredge v. Mitchell, 214 Mass. 480, 483, 102 N.E. 69 (1913); Commonwealth v. Figueroa, 56 Mass.App.Ct. 641, 646, 779 N.E.2d 669 (2002). Absent a showing that no witness could have a......