Hyman v. New York Cent. R. Co.
| Decision Date | 31 March 1925 |
| Citation | 240 N.Y. 137,147 N.E. 613 |
| Parties | HYMAN v. NEW YORK CENT. R. CO. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Action by Joseph Hyman against the New York Central Railroad Company. From a judgment of the Appellate Division (211 App. Div. 57, 206 N. Y. S. 513), reversing on the law and the facts a judgment entered on the verdict of a jury for plaintiff, plaintiff appeals.
Judgment modified, and, as so modified, affirmed.
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First department.
Benjamin Davidson and Benjamin S. Kirsh, both of New York City, for appellant.
Jacob Aronson and Alex S. Lyman, both of New York City, for respondent.
This is an action for malicious prosecution. The plaintiff was arrested in Toledo, Ohio, charged with the commission of the misdemeanor of riding on a railroad train without paying his fare. Upon the hearing he was discharged.
In this action against the New York Central Railroad Company he was awarded a verdict by the jury, but the judgment entered thereon was reversed by the Appellate Division, and his complaint dismissed upon the ground that as a matter of law there was probable cause for his arrest. As upon this record, we think the question of probable cause was one for the jury, I will briefly refer to the evidence.
The plaintiff, a resident of the city of New York, was a traveling salesman for the Parisian Slipper Company; his territory covering the big cities in Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Having customers in Toledo, Ohio, whom it was necessary for him to see, he bought a ticket of the defendant at its ticket office in Buffalo, N. Y., on the 9th day of May, 1921, for Toledo. He also purchased a Pullman tickiet. On his railroad ticket he checked two small sample cases through to Toledo, and received checks therefor. The train was a through train to Toledo which changed conductors at Cleveland. When the first conductor, named Newton, came through the train after leaving Buffalo, he took the plaintiff's ticket, and did not give it back to him. When the other conductor, named Null, got on the train at Cleveland, he asked the plaintiff for his ticket, and was told that the first conductor had taken it before the train reached Cleveland and had not given it back to him. Thereupon the conductor said:
‘Well, I have got to have a ticket or else you will have to pay your fare; and if you do not pay your fare, I will have to put you off.’
The plaintiff said:
‘Well, you go ahead and put me off.’
Later the conductor came back and said to the plaintiff:
‘I am going to wire to Cleveland to find out whether the other conductor had picked up a Toledo ticket, and if he did not, you will have to pay your fare, or else I am going to put you off.’
Again the conductor came back and said:
‘The other conductor did not pick up any Toledo ticket; we have not got it, and you will have to pay your fare, or else I will have to put you off.’
There was a railroad detective on the train who also talked to the plaintiff and asked him to pay his fare, and again the plaintiff explained to him that he had paid his fare, and had given the ticket to the first conductor who failed to give it back. He showed the detective his baggage checks for his baggage shipped through to Toledo, which at least was some indication that the plaintiff had purchased a ticket through to that point. Baggage is checked to point of destination on passenger tickets. The conversation between the detective and the plaintiff was this: The plaintiff said:
‘I certainly could not check my baggage through to Toledo unless I had a railroad ticket, and I certainly could not get a Pullman unless I showed my railroad ticket also.’
The detective replied:
The baggage checks were Nos. 78998, 78996. The name of the baggage master at Buffalo from whom the plaintiff procured these checks was McMahon. Without objection plaintiff offered in evidence a telegram received by him while at Toledo from McMahon reading as follows:
‘May 11, 1921.
‘Joseph Hyman Secor Hotel Toledo O. Ticket three four six one destined Toledo used connection baggage checks 78998 and 96
‘M McMahon.’
When the plaintiff arrived at Toledo he was arrested on the complaint of Conductor Null, taken to the police station in a patrol wagon, held in bail for a hearing on the charge of riding upon railroad trains without paying his fare, and on the hearing was discharged.
By the plaintiff's evidence it appeared, therefore, that he had purchased a ticket from Buffalo to Toledo; the train was a through train; the conductor took his ticket, and did not give it back. So far as the evidence shows there was nothing surprising about this, as the plaintiff apparently did not know anything about the change of conductors at Cleveland or the necessity to show his ticket again. After leaving Cleveland, another conductor demanded his ticket, and was not satisfied with the plaintiff's explanation that had given his ticket to the first conductor and had not received it back. To confirm his story the plaintiff showed the conductor his two baggage checks, and it is uncontradicted that baggage would not be shipped through to Toledo, Ohio, unless the baggage master saw the plaintiff's ticket through to the same place. The plaintiff also showed the conductor his Pullman tickets to Toledo. The conductor told the plaintiff that he had telegraphed the first conductor and that the latter did not have a Toledo ticket.
[1][2] To meet this evidence on behalf of the plaintiff, Null, the second conductor, differs little in his testimony from the plaintiff, except that he says that he showed to the plaintiff the telegram which he had received from Newton, the first conductor. Null swears that he telegraphed Newton and received a reply that he, Newton, did not have a Toledo ticket in his bunch of tickets. Newton swears that while he was in the office at Cleveland making up his report he received a telegram from Null, examined his bunch of tickets, and could find no Toledo ticket. He answered Null's telegram accordingly. Apparently...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Torres v. Jones
...by the court as a matter of law (see Munoz, 18 N.Y.2d at 11, 271 N.Y.S.2d 645, 218 N.E.2d 527 ; see also Hyman v. New York Cent. R.R. Co., 240 N.Y. 137, 143, 147 N.E. 613 [1925] ). At trial, the jury remains free to infer the presence or absence of the elements of false arrest and malicious......
-
Torres v. Jones
...by the court as a matter of law (see Munoz, 18 N.Y.2d at 11, 271 N.Y.S.2d 645, 218 N.E.2d 527 ; see also Hyman v. New York Cent. R.R. Co., 240 N.Y. 137, 143, 147 N.E. 613 [1925] ). At trial, the jury remains free to infer the presence or absence of the elements of false arrest and malicious......
-
Loeb v. Teitelbaum
...to the belief that a crime had been committed by the person charged" (Carl v. Ayers, 53 N.Y. 14, 17; see, also, Hyman v. New York Cent. R.R. Co., 240 N.Y. 137, 147 N.E. 613). The existence of probable cause must be determined as of the time the prosecution was initiated (see Rawson v. Legge......
-
Gratton v. Vadney
...believe the plaintiffs were guilty ( Colon v. New York, 60 N.Y.2d 78, 455 N.E.2d 1248 [1983] ; Hyman v. New York Central Railroad Company, 240 N.Y. 137 ; Rivera v. New York, 40 AD3d 334 ). The information provided by this defendant was therefore sufficient to provide the police with probabl......