Grace v. Dempsey

• Citation: 75 Wis. 313,43 N.W. 1127
• Parties: GRACE v. DEMPSEY ET AL.
• Decision Date: 03 December 1889
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin

75 Wis. 313

43 N.W. 1127

GRACE

v.DEMPSEY ET AL.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Dec. 3, 1889.

Appeal from circuit court, Iowa county.

This is an action for damages for the false imprisonment of the plaintiff by the defendants at Highland, Iowa county, Wis., January 21, 1888. The answer consists of denials, admissions, and the statement of the circumstances as claimed by the defendants. There was evidence on the trial tending to prove the facts as claimed by the plaintiff, and as stated to the jury by the trial court, as follows: “The plaintiff claims that upon January 21, 1888, the defendants, with others, met at the house of the defendant Thomas Dempsey, most of them at the invitation of the latter; that Mr. Dempsey then read to them a letter which the plaintiff had written to him a short time before, which letter has been read to you in evidence; that after reading the letter Mr. Dempsey told the defendants, and said others who had met with them, to go and find Mr. Grace, and bring or fetch him to him; that thereupon the defendants and said others left the house of Mr. Dempsey, with the purpose of bringing him (Grace) there; that pursuant to such purpose they went to the law-office of the latter, some of them going into the office, and the others remaining outside, or upon the steps leading to the office; that one of those who went into the office seized him, and he was informed that they had come to have him go with them to the house of Mr. Dempsey; that, being frightened by such seizure, and the array of men within his office, and in fear that if he refused to go to the house of Mr. Dempsey he would be compelled to do so by violence, he said he was willing to go with them; that he went with them from his house towards the house of Mr. Dempsey; that when near the house the latter appeared at the front door, and said, ‘Bring him in;’ that, being surrounded by the defendants and the others who had gone for him, and fearing that if he did not walk into the house he would be forced in, he walked into the house; that when he got in he was seized by the collar by Mr. Dempsey, and compelled to go upon his knees, those who, as aforesaid, had gone for him being in the same room, or its immediate vicinity, and that, while he was upon his knees, Mr. Dempsey struck him in the face, and asked him if he would take back the statements made in the letter; and that thereupon he said, ‘Under the circumstances, I will;’ that he (the plaintiff) was then permitted to arise, and shortly after left the house; that from the time the defendants and said others came to his office for him, he (said plaintiff) was in a state of fear for his personal safety; and that all that he did from the time said parties came into his office until he left Mr. Dempsey's house he did by compulsion, being put in fear by the manner and acts of the defendants and said others acting with them, and the array of force about him; that, in consequence of said acts of the defendants and those who acted with them, he has suffered injury in body, mind, and business. What I have said concerning the claim of the plaintiff as to what the evidence proves is not given as my opinion of what is proved. I have no right to express an opinion upon what the evidence proves, or fails to prove.” The letter mentioned in the foregoing statement was in evidence, and is as follows: “Thomas Dempsey--Sir: Some time since, I accused you of being criminally intimate with my wife, giving you my reasons therefor. You neither denied or admitted the same, but tauntingly replied that your conscience did not trouble you for such a thing. I now give you this opportunity of clearing yourself from suspicion and satisfy me, viz.: After dinner to-morrow, the 16th, I will remain at home till two o'clock, in which time you may call, and by your oath deny that the above charges are true. This will be sufficient. Failing to do this, I shall take it for granted that you admit the truth of the charge, and will on first sight use you as an adulterous villain who has used my home as a brothel. J. F. GRACE.” At the close of the trial the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and assessed his damages against the defendants at the sum of $5,000. The court also submitted to the jury four several questions, which, with the answers to them, were to the effect (1) that they found in favor of the plaintiff, upon the ground that he was falsely imprisoned; (2) that the plaintiff was entitled to recover, as compensatory damages up to the time of the trial, the sum of $2,000; (3) that the plaintiff was entitled to recover as damages for future disability the sum of $1,000; (4) that there should be awarded to the plaintiff, in addition to compensatory damages, and as a punishment to the defendants, the sum of $2,000. The court thereupon ordered judgment upon such verdict and findings in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants; and from the judgment entered thereon accordingly the defendants bring this appeal.

J. P. Smelker, W. E. Carter, and S. N. Pinney, for appellants.

S. W. Reese and J. M. Olin, for respondent.

CASSODAY, J., ( after stating the facts as above.)

At the time of the occurrence in question, January 21, 1888, the defendant Rev. Father Thomas Dempsey was the pastor of St. Philip's Catholic Church at Highland, Iowa county, Wis., and had been for several years. During the same time the plaintiff was a lawyer at Highland. He had some years before married a cousin of the priest; and he and his wife were both members of that church. For some time before the occurrence in question, there had been an unfriendliness or misunderstanding between the plaintiff and the priest. The plaintiff wrote and sent to the priest the letter mentioned, January 15, 1888, and it was received by him on the same day. The letter contained a grave charge against the priest. In writing the letter, the plaintiff, as a member of the church, assumed a responsibility which undoubtedly subjected him to investigation by the church, or the constituted authorities thereof, and to be dealt with according to his merits. This court has recently disclaimed all right “to determine mere questions of faith, doctrine, or schism, not necessarily involved in the enforcement of ascertained trusts,” nor the “determination of legal rights.” Fadness v. Braunborg, 73 Wis. 293, 41 N. W. Rep. 84. We now disclaim any right of interference with mere church discipline, in the absence of any invasion of the legal rights of persons or property. On the part of the defendants it is claimed, in effect, that at the time of the occurrence in question the plaintiff was invited to the parsonage for the purpose of enabling the priest “to lay the whole matter before the leading members of the church, and give the plaintiff an interview before them;” that the plaintiff came voluntarily, and without harm from any one, “and then and there retracted” the charges contained in the letter. There is evidence tending to support these claims. On the other hand, the plaintiff claims the facts substantially as summarized in the foregoing statement. The evidence is more or less in conflict. The determination of such conflict was the province of the jury; and with the preponderance of evidence this court has nothing to do. There is certainly some evidence in the case to sustain the claims of the plaintiff; and hence, for the purposes of this appeal, the verdict and findings of the jury must be accepted by us as verities. We are only to consider, therefore, the correctness of such rulings of the trial court as have been challenged. The assignments of error are 31 in number. As to many of them, the rulings of the court were so manifestly correct as to require no mention. All of them are such as might arise on any trial for false imprisonment, and hence are common in their application. We shall only consider those material questions which seem to call for an expression of opinion.

1. Error is assigned because the court struck from the answer the portion relating to the action of...