Hawk v. Ridgway

• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: WALKER
• Citation: Hawk v. Ridgway, 33 Ill. 473, 1864 WL 2956 (Ill. 1864)
• Decision Date: 31 January 1864
• Parties: ALEXANDER J. HAWK et al.v.RICHARD H. RIDGWAY.

33 Ill. 473

1864 WL 2956 (Ill.)

ALEXANDER J. HAWK et al.

v.RICHARD H. RIDGWAY.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

January Term, 1864.

APPEAL from Circuit Court of Morgan County.

Trespass for an alleged false imprisonment, brought by appellee against appellants.

The court instructed the jury for the plaintiff:

1. That if they believed from, &c., that the defendants followed the plaintiff to Springfield, or any other place, took him into their custody and there kept him, and brought him to Jacksonville, and offered to deliver him into the sheriff's custody then they were guilty as charged in plaintiff's declaration, and the jury should find for the plaintiff in such sum as under the circumstances proved they might think him entitled to, not exceeding two thousand dollars.

2. That in making up their verdict they were authorized to take into consideration the pecuniary circumstances of the defendants, and their ability to pay such verdict, not exceeding two thousand dollars, as might be rendered against them, and this the jury must gather from the proof before them.

3. That in order to sustain a charge for false imprisonment it was not necessary for the plaintiff to show that the defendants used violence, or laid hands on him, or shut him up in any jail or prison, but it was sufficient to show that the defendants, at any place or time, in any manner restrained the plaintiff of his liberty, or detained him in any manner from going where he wished, or prevented him from doing what he desired; and if they believed that such facts had been proved in this case, then they were authorized to find for plaintiff any verdict they thought proper, not exceeding two thousand dollars.

The jury found for the plaintiff with $450 damages.

Morrison & Epler, H. B. McClure, and Knapp & Burr, for appellants.

M. McConnel, for appellee.

WALKER, C. J.

It is insisted that the court erred in giving appellee's instructions. No objection is perceived to the first and third of these instructions as given. The second, however, is wrong, as it assumes that the jury will find a verdict for appellee. It informs the jury, that in making up their verdict, they are authorized to take into consideration the pecuniary circumstances of appellants, and their ability to pay the verdict that might be rendered against them. This instruction takes from the jury the question whether appellants were guilty of the trespasses charged, and deprives them of the right to pass upon the...