Goodrich v. Lawrence
| Decision Date | 23 May 1939 |
| Citation | 189 So. 233,138 Fla. 287 |
| Parties | GOODRICH v. LAWRENCE et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied June 8, 1939.
Error to Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; George W. Tedder, Judge.
Action by Roy D. Goodrich against W. Hiram Lawrence and others for unlawful detention and imprisonment and for assault. To review a judgment for defendants, plaintiff brings error.
Affirmed.
W. D. Bell, of Arcadia, and R. K. Bell, of Miami for plaintiff in error.
E. M Baynes, of West Palm Beach, for defendants in error.
Writ of error brings for review the judgment in favor of the defendant on trial of pleas of not guilty to the first second and third counts of the declaration, which declaration was in six counts, as follows:
'Roy D. Goodrich by W. D. Bell, his attorney, sues W. Hiram Lawrence, J. T. (Red) Lawrence, and J. Edward Hardwick, for that the defendants unlawfully detained and imprisoned the plaintiff in the office of the Sheriff of Palm Beach County, Florida, to the damage of plaintiff of $50,000.00, therefore, he brings this suit and claims $50,000.00 damages.
'Second Count.
'Roy D. Goodrich by W. D. Bell, his attorney, sues W. Hiram Lawrence, J. T. (Red) Lawrence, and J. Edward Hardwick, for that the defendants assaulted and beat plaintiff and unlawfully detained and imprisoned plaintiff in the office of the sheriff of Palm Beach County, Florida, to the damage of plaintiff of $50,000.00, therefore he brings this suit and claims $50,000.00 damages.
'Third Count.
'Roy D. Goodrich by W. D. Bell, his attorney, sues W. Hiram Lawrence, J. T. (Red) Lawrence and J. Edward Hardwick, for that the defendants unlawfully detained and imprisoned the plaintiff in the common jail of Palm Beach County, Florida, to the damage of plaintiff of $50,000.00, therefore he brings this suit and claims $50,000.00 damages.
'Fourth Count.
'Roy D. Goodrich by W. D. Bell, his attorney, sues J. T. (Red) Lawrence, for that the defendant unlawfully took plaintiff into his custody and gave him into the custody of J. Edward Hardwick, who assaulted and beat plaintiff and caused him to be imprisoned in the office of the sheriff of Palm Beach County, W. Hiram Lawrence, to the damage of plaintiff of $50,000.00, therefore he brings this suit and claims $50,000.00 damages.
'Fifth Count.
'Roy D. Goodrich by W. D. Bell, his attorney, sues J. Edward Hardwick, for that the defendant assaulted and beat plaintiff and gave him into the custody of W. Hiram Lawrence and caused him to be imprisoned in the common jail of Palm Beach County, Florida, to the damage of plaintiff of $50,000.00, therefore he brings this suit and claims $50,000.00 damages.
'Sixth Count.
'Roy D. Goodrich by W. D. Bell, his attorney, sues W. Hiram Lawrence for that the defendant unlawfully imprisoned plaintiff in the common jail of Plam Beach County, to the damage of plaintiff of $50,000.00, therefore he brings this suit and claims $50,000.00 damages.'
The Fourth Count went out on demurrer and the Fifth and Sixth Counts were stricken on motion.
The plaintiff in error has stated seven question for our consideration. The first question challenges the action of the Court in sustaining demurrer and granting motion to strike, supra.
The order on motion to strike stated: 'The court being of the opinion that the matters contained in the fifth and sixth counts are contained in the first three counts'.
There was no error.
The Fourth Count of the declaration under the rules stated in the case of Swenson v. Cahoon, 111 Fla. 788, 152 So. 203, and cases there cited, was not sufficient to state a cause of action against W. Hiram Lawrence as Sheriff of Palm Beach County.
Counsel for plaintiff in error argues that, because the demurrer was addressed to the entire declaration, it was error to sustain the demurrer to some counts of the declaration and deny it as to others. This is technically correct, but since it is not shown that the ruling of the court resulted in prejudice to the plaintiff, the error was harmless.
The second question challenges the action of the court in excluding certain evidence proffered through a witness by the name of Mortz as to what occurred between himself, the wife of the plaintiff and two deputies in the sheriff's office on the day of the arrest and occurrence of the alleged cause of action. The proffered evidence could have been considered only for the purpose of showing that the witness and the plaintiff's wife were denied the privilege of seeing the plaintiff.
There is nothing in the record to show that this evidence tended to rpove the allegation of the declaration.
We think that the court was justified in excluding the evidence proffered because the proffer shows that the testimony of the witness would have been as to the treatment of himself by the defendants, or some of them, which would not have tended to prove the allegations of the declaration but would have tended to prejudice the jury against the defendants.
The third question challenges the action of the court in instructing the jury to return a verdict in favor of the defendant on the First and Third Counts of the declaration and directing the jury as follows:
'The court charges you as to the defendant W. H. Lawrence that the court has directed a verdict on the first count and third count of the declaration, and you will not consider those two counts in determining the issues involved in this cause insofar as the defendant W. H. Lawrence is concerned; you will only consider as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Miami v. Nelson, 65-513.
...the person he is about to arrest or apprehend is the person who has committed the felony. See: Dixon v. State, supra; Goodrich v. Lawrence, 138 Fla. 287, 189 So. 233. Where there is no dispute in the testimony about the facts constituting the reasonable grounds for belief that a felony has ......
-
Mendez v. Blackburn, 37257
...bond can be held liable when he exercises the power which he has but not when he usurps power which he does not have. Goodrich v. Lawrence, 138 Fla. 287, 189 So. 233 (1939), further illustrates the distinction. A sheriff was held free from liability for an assault committed by a deputy who ......
-
Mendez v. Blackburn, 67--260
...in Swenson, 'has reference to the unlawful assumption, or seizure and exercise of power not vested in one * * *.' In Goodrich v. Lawrence, 1939, 138 Fla. 287, 189 So. 233, the Supreme Court held that a Sheriff was not liable for an assault and battery inflicted by his deputy, even when the ......
-
Posey v. Starr
...the authorized legal duty of the duputy is to conduct the prisoner to jail or to a magistrate. In the case of Goodrich v. Lawrence, 1939, 138 Fla. 287, 189 So. 233, 236, the court discusses the legal liability of a sheriff to respond in damages to a person who was assaulted by a deputy whil......