Harris v. The City Of Atlanta

• Decision Date: 28 February 1879
• Citation: 62 Ga. 290
• Parties: Harris. v. The City of Atlanta et al.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

62 Ga. 290

Harris. v. The City of Atlanta et al.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

(February Term, 1879.)

Municipal corporations. Officers. Damages. Evidence. Practice in the Supreme Court. Before Judge Hillyer. Fulton Superior Court. April Term, 1878.

Harris brought case for false imprisonment against the City of Atlanta, one of its policemen, and its two guard-house keepers. On the trial, the evidence for plaintiff was, in brief, as follows:

1. Plaintiff, by interrogatories: On June 30, 1877, he was in the city of Atlanta; came from his home some miles out to collect some money due him. While standing on the sidewalk two policemen approached and asked his name. He said "Wesley Harris." They did not believe it. He insisted that it was. They said that they suspected him and "would put him up a while and see." They took him to the city station-house— Goodson (one of defendants) in charge of him. He was put into the station-house and kept there by its keepers. He remained there for four days. Once they took him out, made him let down bis breeches, examined him, and then put him back. On July 4th, Goodson took him to a convict campon the outskirts of the city. He asked the boss if he knew the prisoner. The *boss said, no. After some parley a person was found who identified him as Harris. Plaintiff\'s attorneys came up with a habeas corpus. After some talking plaintiff was liberated. Actual damages from lossof time, etc., shown, amounting to some $12.00, besides general damages. The persons who thus imprisoned him, without cause, were city policeman Goodson and the city station-house keepers, Cook and Mehaffey. The place of confinement was the city station-house. No other reason for arrest than suspicion.

2. Thomas. Am chief of Atlanta police; was so at the date of arrest, etc. Goodson was, and still is, a city policeman in the employment and pay of the city, just as he was then. Cook and Mehaffey were, and still are, keepers of the city station-house, in the employment and pay of the city. This station-house is one occupied by the City of Atlanta for various municipal purposes. It contains cells for offenders against the city, a recorder's courtroom, general police room, offices, etc. The duty of the station-house keepers is, and was, to stay at this house, look after it generally, keep a book of records of the police, and do other minor duties. They do not go out on patrol duty, make arrest, or other things done by the general police force. They and the station-house are entirely for the convenience of the city. They are under the control of the city, not of the state. Police book of records and chief's report to city commissioners identified—both required by ordinance. This was report for June. It included this arrest and went before the commissioners at their meeting.

3. Police record book, showing that this arrest was "on suspicion, " and prisoner was discharged by arresting officer.

4. Chief's report showing number of arrests made by Good-son, and commending him for industry in that month.

5. City charter, etc., showing general duties of city police commissioners, requiring police book to be kept, and chief's monthly report. *Plaintiff closed. The court granted a non-suit as to the city. Plaintiff excepted. Evidence for other defendants was, in brief, as follows:

1. Goodson. I made the arrest. It was on suspicion, as shown by the police book—suspicion that he was an escaped convict. I used to be at a convict camp. Plaintiff was then there. I left for a while. When I went back plaintiff was not there. I heard he had escaped. When I met him in Atlanta I arrested him. After keeping him several days, I failed to identify him sufficiently as a convict and let him go. Have since determined he was a convict. Have re-arrested him and turned him over to the principal keeper of the penitentiary. Do not know where he is now. He was not carried before any magistrate, or trial had.

2. Cook. Was station-house keeper with Mehaffey, Was off duty when arrest was made. Returned, found prisoner there, and kept him with other prisoners until let out.

Under the charge of court, the jury found for defendants. Plaintiff excepted.

The following rulings, among others, are assigned as errors:

1. Because the court granted the non-suit as to the city.

2. Because the court refused to charge the following request: "If plaintiff was arrested for an escape, it was the duty of the person or persons arresting and detaining him to use reasonable diligence to carry him before a court of competent jurisdiction for trial or commitment."

Instead of this, the court charged as follows: "It was not necessary to carry plaintiff before any magistrate or court; if he was a convict escaped, they had already pronounced upon him."

3. Because the court charged as follows: "If plaintiff was an escaped convict and the police arrested him, it would besaid in law that they did no more than their duty, and *they would not be liable. * * * If there was probable cause for arrest, no damages could be recovered except actual damages. * * * If the officers in good faith arrested and imprisoned plaintiff, as an escaped convict, and they had reasonable cause for such an arrest, they would not be liable."

4. Because the court allowed defendant Goodson, over plaintiff's objections, to testify as follows: "The suspicion was that he was an escaped convict. * * * I heard he had escaped. * * * I have since determined that he was such (a convict), and have re-arrested him and turned him over to the principal keeper of the penitentary; I do not know what has become of him."

(The court added a note to the bill of exceptions, in which he stated that the witness, Goodson, testified that when he missed the plaintiff from the penitentiary convict camp, he was informed that he had escaped, and that it was on this information that he acted in making the arrest; and that it was when this last statement came out that the court ruled the testimony in.)

When this case was called in the supreme court, the court suggested that service had been perfected on all the defendants in error except one within the time prescribed by law. As to Goodson, the bill of exceptions was certified July 18, 1878, and on July 29th the sheriff entered service upon him. July 28th was Sunday. The court called for authority upon the questionof dismissal. After examination the writ of error was retained.

Jackson & Lumpkin; F. L,. Haralson, for plaintiff in error, cited as follows: On service of bill of exceptions, Code, sec. 4, p. 8; 23 Ga., 49; 33 Ib, 146; 12 Ib., 93; 14 Ib., 122; 57Ib., 244 (rule of exclusion is not inclusion); Code, sec. 4259. Nonsuit error, Code, sees. 1680, 2961; 18 Ga., 412; 38 Ib., 346; 46 Ib., 80, 19 Pick., 515, et seq.; 5 Gray, 110, 119; 40 N. 295 Y., 442, 418 et seq.; 17 lb., 386. Differs from *54 Ga., 468. Ratification, 58 Ga, 216; 19 Pick., 515 et seq. On evidence, 32 Ga., 557. Trial of escape necessary, Code, § 4484; acts, 1876,...