Fitzgerald v. Lewis
| Decision Date | 19 October 1895 |
| Parties | FITZGERALD v. LEWIS et al. SMITH v. SAME. PETERSON v. SAME. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from superior court, Hampden county; Justin Dewey, Judge.
Three actions, one by Edmund Fitzgerald against James H. Lewis and others, one by Quartus J. Smith against same, and one by Andrew J. Peterson against same, for assault and false imprisonment. There was a verdict for defendants, and plaintiffs bring exceptions. Exceptions overruled.
These are actions of tort for assault and false imprisonment. Defendants were police officers of the city of Springfield, and claimed to justify the arrest by virtue of sections 99, 100, c. 203, Pub.St., and chapter 410, Acts 1890. Plaintiffs were arrested without warrant, and confined in lockup several hours, until released on bail; and complaint and warrant were issued against them the next day within 24 hours, upon which all were subsequently tried by the police court of Springfield. The evidence disclosed: That the plaintiff Fitzgerald is the part owner of premises adjoining real estate of the city of Springfield, owned by said city, said city land being a part of the poor farm on which the almshouse is situated. That for some time there had been a dispute between the city and Fitzgerald concerning the boundary line between his said premises and those of the city. The plaintiff Smith is a civil engineer, and plaintiff Peterson was in the employ of Fitzgerald as a laborer. That upon the day of the arrest all three plaintiffs were on the premises of both plaintiffs Fitzgerald and the city of Springfield; said Smith for the purpose of making a survey to determine the disputed line, and the other plaintiffs assisting him. Smith was employed by Fitzgerald to do the work. The jury found that at the time of the arrest all three plaintiffs were upon the land of the city. The defendant Lewis was the legally appointed agent of the board of overseers of the poor of said city, and by direction of said board, prior to the arrests, caused to be posted in two places upon the land of the city, where they could have been seen, the following notice: “Trespassing on these grounds forbidden under penalty of the law.” Lyman H. Sexton, employed by the overseers of the poor, master of the almshouse of said city, and the party who managed the farm, and by direction of defendant Lewis, prior to the day of the arrests, had verbally notified the plaintiff Fitzgerald not to come upon the land of said city. Said Fitzgerald, on the day of and prior to the arrests had seen one of said notices upon the land. The other two plaintiffs had had no oral notice, such as was given Fitzgerald, and testified that they had not seen the posted notices; but there was evidence tending to show that the notices were fastened to stakes driven in the ground, and were about four feet in height. There was evidence tending to show that the overseers of the poor had been, and were in fact, in control of said farm. The complaint upon which the plaintiffs were tried, and which was introduced in evidence by the defendants (the material part thereof), is as follows: “Did there and then without right enter upon and remain on the improved land of the city of Springfield there situate [there follows description of land], after having been forbidden so to do by said city of Springfield, the owner of said land, and having the control of said land, by notice posted on said land; contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided.” There was evidence tending to show that one Slocum, the present and past city engineer of Springfield, had several times, while such engineer, several years before this occasion, made attempts to determine the disputed line, but there was no evidence of authority for him so to do. The plaintiff Fitzgerald offered to show that immediately prior to the day of the arrest he had a conversation with Slocum about the line, in which Slocum suggested to the plaintiff that he get an engineer to find the line; and that it was in consequence of this suggestion that all the plaintiffs were present on said occasion; but there was no evidence of authority of said Slocum to make such suggestion or authorize entry on the city land. The plaintiffs offered to show by the record the acquittal by said police court of the plaintiffs Smith and Peterson on the complaint aforesaid, issued for said alleged trespass, but the court excluded the evidence. The plaintiffs asked the court for the several rulings following: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Beckner
...Leich (1906) 166 Ind. 680, 78 N. E. 189, 9 Ann. Cas. 302;Quality Clothes Shop v. Keeney, 57 Ind. App. 500, 106 N. E. 541;Fitzgerald v. Lewis, 164 Mass. 495, 41 N. E. 687;Culver v. People ex rel., 161 Ill. 89, 43 N. E. 812;Jones v. Dexter, 8 Fla. 276;Kugler's Appeal, 55 Pa. 123;Cole v. Wayne......
-
State v. Beckner
...... sustained. . . The. following rule of statutory construction is stated in 2. Lewis' Sutherland, Statutory Construction (2d Ed.) 787,. 788, 789, Section 405:. . . . "Where one statute adopts the particular ...Fitzgerald v. Lewis, 164 Mass. 495 (41. N.E. 687); Culver v. People, 161 Ill. 89 (43 N.E. 812); Jones v. Dexter, 8 Fla. 276; Kugler's. Appeal, 55 Pa. 123; ......
-
Ward v. Coletti
...i. e., appropriation from the general fund. See Commonwealth v. Howes, 270 Mass. 69, 72, 169 N.E. 806 (1930); Fitzgerald v. Lewis, 164 Mass. 495, 499, 41 N.E. 687 (1895); 1A C. Sands, Sutherland Statutory Construction § 22.35 (4th ed. 1972). See also G.L. c. 29, § 16 (payments authorized by......
-
Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Wickline
...her, and evidence of acquittal on a complaint is held incompetent in an action for false arrest and imprisonment. Fitzgerald Lewis, 164 Mass. 495, 501, 41 N.E. 687; Zygmuntowicz American Steel, etc., Co., 240 Mass. 421, 426, 134 N.E. 385. * * * If, however, the action had been for malicious......