Hill v. Levy
| Citation | 256 P.2d 622,117 Cal.App.2d 667 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Decision Date | 06 May 1953 |
| Parties | HILL v. LEVY et al. Civ. 4621. |
West, Vizzard, Howden & Baker, James Vizzard, Bakersfield, for appellant.
Dorris, Fleharty & Phillips, D. M. Phillips, Bakersfield, for respondent.
Defendant Jack Levy appeals from a judgment rendered against him for the sum of $600 in an action for false arrest and imprisonment. The amended complaint contains three causes of action. The trial court concluded that plaintiff Hill was not entitled to judgment on the first two causes of action and they are not here involved. Appellant contends that the trial court's findings are inconsistent and not supported by the evidence, and that a cause of action was not stated in the third count of the amended complaint.
On February 27, 1949, at about 5:00 o'clock P. M. appellant, with his wife and Mr. and Mrs. Reinik, entered the El Tejon Hotel in Bakersfield. They were seated in the dining room and ordered a meal. Plaintiff Hill and his wife, together with three other couples, were seated in a booth in the same room and the two parties were approximately 18 feet apart. Appellant testified that he then heard loud conversation with the consistent mentioning of the word 'Jews'; that Hill repeatedly said 'If they could not sell potatoes to the Armenians, they could always sell them to the God damn Jews'; that 'Mr. Hitler took care of the Jews in Germany and that they would take care of the rest of them'; that 'The conversation was apparently centered on a deal of potatoes and acreage in Cuyama on which they were going to plant potatos and it would not matter whether they got the money or not'; that 'The conversation was that the government would give them $1.45 or $2.45 a sack for them and no God damn Jews were going to take the deal away from them and that was the conversation they carried on for 10 or 15 minutes'; that he heard other language of a profane nature, rose up from his seat and told Hill that 'he had listened to the conversation long enough and for him to quit it; that there were women present'; that Hill replied 'No son-of-a-bitch is going to make me shut up'; that Hill continued his remarks about the Jews and appellant then left the room and contacted the hotel manager; that Hill also left the room and talked with the manager and both appellant and Hill then returned to the dining room, where there was more profanity; that appellant then called the police. When they arrived a few moments later, appellant, in the presence of the officers, told Hill that he was under arrest. The officers then took Hill into custody and to jail, where he was detained for approximately an hour.
On April 14th, 1949, appellant filed a complaint against Hill in the police court of Bakersfield, charging him with a disturbance of the peace alleged to have been committed on February 27, 1949. A jury trial was had which resulted in an acquittal and the present action followed.
Hill's testimony as to what took place in the hotel was that he and his companions were discussing raising 160 acres of potatoes; that someone said the potatoes could be sold to Jews, Gentiles or any one; that Levy stood up and addressed Hill and his party and said 'You fellows are talking loud and boisterous and I don't like it and if you don't shut up, I will call a cop and have you arrested'; that he, Hill, then said ; that Levy left the room and returned with the Hotel manager and demanded that he arrest Hill; that the manager would not make an arrest and that after a conversation between the manager and Levy, the officers came and the arrest was made; that Levy pointed to Hill and said 'I want this man arrested'.
The trial court found 'That said plaintiff was guilty of a breach of the peace by the use of profane language in the presence of women, and by boisterous conduct in a public place, which said breach of peace was a breach of peace of said defendant and the companions of defendant; but that at the time of said breach of peace by plaintiff, defendant Jack Levy failed to place said plaintiff under arrest, for a period of approximately one-half hour, and did not place plaintiff under arrest until such time as the police officers of the City of Bakersfield arrived at the El Tejon Hotel; that at said time, when said Police Officer on the request of said defendant placed said plaintiff under arrest, said plaintiff was not then and there guilty of a breach of the peace, or disturbing the peace, at the time said arrest was made.' The court also found that the allegations of the first affirmative defense pleaded by defendant Jack Levy were true. These allegations, insofar as are material here, were that on or about the 27th day of February, 1949, at the El Tejon Hotel, plaintiff was loud, abusive and profane in his language, and directed toward defendants abusive, scurrilous and profane remarks;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Wilkins, Cr. 20954
...person to believe a crime had been committed in his presence. See also People v. Score, 48 Cal.App.2d 495, 120 P.2d 62; Hill v. Levy, 117 Cal.App.2d 667, 256 P.2d 622. Without question, the evidence above recited is more than adequate to sustain the trial court's implied determination that ......
-
State v. Wozniak
...on the part of the officer was not the most desirable, it was reasonable and prompt under the circumstances. See Hill v. Levy, 117 Cal.App.2d 667, 256 P.2d 622, 624 (1953); People v. Sessa, 43 Misc.2d 24, 250 N.Y.S.2d 193, 195-196 (1964); 5 Am.Jur.2d Arrest § 33 at p. 725, 58 A.L.R.2d 1059,......
-
People v. Sjosten
...exhibited here, is the only remaining requirement of a valid citizen's arrest for a misdemeanor without a warrant (Hill v. Levy, 117 Cal.App.2d 667, 670, 256 P.2d 622). We hold that Mrs. Morales had the right to make the arrest pursuant to section 837, subdivision As to the delegation of he......
-
People v. Hesslink
...instead of doing so he goes about other matters unconnected with the arrest, the right to make the arrest ceases. (Hill v. Levy (1953) 117 Cal.App.2d 667, 670, 256 P.2d 622.) Here, while defendant may initially have been authorized as a private citizen to arrest the victim for solicitation ......