Knapp v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co.
| Decision Date | 12 April 1901 |
| Citation | 85 N.W. 769,113 Iowa 532 |
| Parties | A. KNAPP v. THE CHICAGO, BURLINGTON & QUINCY RAILROAD COMPANY AND J. M. HARRISON, Appellants |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Wapello District Court.--HON. M. A. ROBERTS, Judge.
A four-ply belt, 7 inches wide and 47 feet long, owned and used by the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway in sawing wood near its roundhouse at Ottumwa, was stolen June 8, 1898, and the defendant Harrison was detailed by said company to ascertain the guilty parties. On the eighteenth of July following, he filed a preliminary information accusing the plaintiff and his son Louis of the crime, and at the same time sued out a search warrant for the belt, which was supposed to be the one in use at plaintiff's stone quarry. On hearing, it was found the belt was in value less than $ 20, and the accused were discharged. Thereupon an information was signed by Harrison and filed, in which the same offense was alleged; the value of the property being correctly stated. Change of venue was taken, a trial had, and the defendants therein again discharged. In this action plaintiff charges that the proceedings mentioned were with malice and without probable cause. The jury so found, and from judgment awarding damages the defendants appeal.
Reversed.
McNett & Tisdale for appellants.
C. C Leech and Jaques & Jaques for appellee.
The railroad company is responsible in no other respect than as employer of Harrison. The latter had no acquaintance whatever with the plaintiff or any member of his family prior to the eighteenth day of July, 1898--the day the preliminary information was filed and the search warrant sued out. But he had previously talked with members of the police force, and had been advised that one of plaintiff's sons was a suspicious character, and had been convicted of larceny and served a term in the penitentiary; and also by Noah, whose beat included his residence, that plaintiff had complained to him of the need of a belt to use in his quarry being short of money to buy one and he (Noah) had suggested that the company's belt would be found there. On that day he had gone, with several employes of the company, who had used the belt in controversy in sawing, to plaintiff's stone quarry, and together they had examined that on plaintiff's engine and pump. These men had positively identified the belt as that of the company--even pointing out identification marks. The belt had been cut down at one side and buckets attached. Upon his return from one trip to the quarry he met plaintiff, who declared the belt was his, and that he had bought it of Harper-McIntyre Company, but immediately, upon Harrison's assertion that it was owned by the company, plaintiff offered to pay what it was worth for it, rather than have any trouble. As Harrison estimated its value at $ 34, and Knapp thought its cost not more than $ 16 or $ 17, there was no settlement. This was the information upon which Harrison acted, and which he laid before reputable counsel, who advised the prosecution. Were the facts and circumstances such as to warrant him, as an ordinarily cautious and prudent man, in the belief of defendant's guilt? That a seven-inch, four-ply belt of the railroad company was stolen, cannot be doubted. One employe had purposely marked it by scratching a cross with a file, and the holes through which to draw the whang strings had been cut instead of punched. The belt on the pump had been cut...
To continue reading
Request your trial