Falls v. Palmetto Power & Light Co.
Decision Date | 10 October 1921 |
Docket Number | 10743. |
Citation | 109 S.E. 93,117 S.C. 327 |
Parties | FALLS v. PALMETTO POWER & LIGHT CO. ET AL. |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Florence County; Thomas S Sease, Judge.
Action by J. F. Falls against the Palmetto Power & Light Company and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Willcox & Willcox, Henry E. Davis, and James M. Lynch, all of Florence, for appellants.
Royall & Fulton and Whiting & Baker, all of Florence, for respondent.
The case contains this statement:
The appellant's argument says:
His honor, Judge Sease, charged the jury as follows:
This charge, not being appealed from, is the law of this case. There was evidence that some fans had been stolen from the defendants' corporation, but no evidence that the fans offered for sale to the defendants' witness Howard were stolen fans. Whatever may be said as to the sufficiency of the evidence of identification of the plaintiff by the witness Howard, yet, as a matter of fact, the parties who made the arrest were not satisfied, and went off to find the purchaser of the fan. The warrant named the person to be arrested as "John Doe." That means that the person who made the affidavit and the officer who issued the warrant were uncertain as to the person to be arrested. The warrant itself bespoke caution. The plaintiff offered to prove his identity by citizens of Florence, easier of access than the purchaser of the fan, but his entreaties were ignored. His honor charged the jury that the arrest must be "upon information that is reasonably calculated to satisfy a man of ordinary prudence and reason that the party sought to be arrested is guilty of a felony." The information did not even satisfy the parties who made the arrest. Under the charge, therefore, the arrest was unlawful. This assignment of error cannot be sustained.
There was abundant evidence to show that the arrest was procured, instigated, and participated in by Hodges. The defendants' witness Howard stated:
Mr Hodges directed the sending of the phone message to police headquarters. He went in his own car for the officer, took him to the place of arrest; watched the plaintiff's baggage for plaintiff's return; took the prisoner and officer to look for the purchaser of the stolen fan. There was abundant evidence from which the jury might have inferred that Mr. Hodges was the effective manager of the entire proceedings. This assignment of error cannot be sustained.
Here again the evidence was abundant. The evidence showed that Mr. Hodges was the general manager of all the company's business, and direct evidence, unobjected to, and by defendants' witness, that it was "on account of the company's business." It is true that Mr. Hodges, denied this, but that made it a question for the jury. This assignment of error cannot be sustained.
The plaintiff was arrested while his identity was uncertain. He was not informed of the cause of his arrest. His request that he be allowed to show who he was by business people of Florence was ignored. He was taken from a station where his train was about to depart, kept until it had gone; no apology for the injury done, and even though it suggested itself to Mr. Hodges that the plaintiff might be short of money, not only was there no offer of assistance, but it was made a matter of jest.
The answer is No.
The judgment appealed from is affirmed.
The plaintiff recovered a verdict of $500 actual damages and $2,000 punitive damages, against both of the defendants, the one a corporation and the other its general superintendent, on account of an alleged false imprisonment, which arose out of the facts, a statement of which from the agreed case is reproduced in the leading opinion.
It may not always be so, but in this particular case the charge of false imprisonment (more accurately denominated wrongful or unlawful imprisonment) depends primarily upon the lawfulness of the plaintiff's arrest, and that must be determined by the statute and the decisions construing it. There is a conflict of testimony as to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Town of Mayesville v. Clamp
... ... statement of Mr. Justice Cothran in the case of Falls v ... Palmetto Power & Light Co., 117 S.C. 327, 109 S.E. 93: ... ...
-
Wingate v. Postal Telegraph & Cable Co.
... ... such authority. Falls v. Palmetto Power & Light Co., 117 ... S.C. 327, 109 S.E. 93; Whitmire v ... ...
- Coffey v. Jenkins