Gardner v. Couch

• Decision Date: 27 July 1904
• Citation: 100 N.W. 673,137 Mich. 358
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: GARDNER v. COUCH.

100 N.W. 673

137 Mich. 358

GARDNER v. COUCH.

Supreme Court of Michigan

July 27, 1904

Case-Made from Circuit Court, Chippewa County; Joseph H. Steere, Judge.

Action by Charles Gardner against John A. Couch. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals on a case-made after judgment. Affirmed.

A. R MacDonell and William A. Coutts, for plaintiff.

Sharpe & Handy, for defendant.

MOORE C.J.

The questions involved grow out of the charge of the judge to the jury, and for that reason we insert the material portions of it here: 'This is what is known as a suit for false imprisonment, the plaintiff suing the defendant to recover damages for an alleged illegal sentence of sixty days in the common jail of this county. The defendant admits the sentencing of this plaintiff to sixty days' imprisonment and that his action in so doing was based upon the complaint and warrant which have been introduced in evidence, each charging plaintiff with being a vagrant. In that connection the defendant denies he ever committed this plaintiff to prison, but, on the contrary, claims he suspended sentence upon him. The claim of the plaintiff is that on the 8th of last December, after he had pleaded not guilty in the defendant's court, when arraigned and called upon to plead to the charge of vagrancy the defendant proceeded to declare him guilty, without any further plea, hearing, or trial, and then sentenced him to sixty days in jail proposing, in that connection, to suspend sentence if he would leave town; but that later a commitment was issued for him under this proceeding, and he was confined in jail. That is denied by the defense, and it is asserted that upon the arraignment the plaintiff pleaded guilty. A formal sentence was thereupon pronounced, with the overture of a suspension of the sentence if he would leave town. Now, such a proceeding as is claimed by plaintiff on the part of the magistrate would entitle the plaintiff to recover damages and you are instructed that to sentence a man who had pleaded not guilty without receiving any further plea, and without giving him any trial, would be an arbitrary and unwarranted proceeding, without jurisdiction, and without color of law and the office would not protect the individual in so doing. It would be entirely different from a case where there was an honest error of judgment in the performance of an official duty. The same rule should and does apply to justice courts as to the higher courts in that particular. Where the subject-matter is within the jurisdiction of the court, and an honest but erroneous conclusion is reached, although the party against whom the judgment is rendered should, by reason of the error, be injured, and entitled to have this judgment set aside, and he be restored to his former rights, yet he is not entitled to claim compensation and damages for such erroneous conclusion. But, on the contrary, if the judge of an inferior court acts in excess of his legal authority, without any authority or claim of authority, knowingly, arbitrarily, and without any color of right, his office would not protect him, and he is liable. It is for you to say, from all the disputed testimony in this case, whether or not, at the time this plaintiff was arraigned in justice court before the defendant, he pleaded guilty to the charge. If he did not, and he was afterwards sentenced and committed, the warrant being issued out of and by authority of defendant's court, and he imprisoned under it, he is entitled to recover--to recover such damages as the testimony shows he has suffered, including loss of time, injury to feelings, annoyance, mortification, and disgrace, which are to be determined by the jury, according to what seems to be just and right, from all the testimony. If the defendant only proceeded to sentence this plaintiff on a plea of guilty, after the same had been made in court before him,...