Leger v. Warren

• Decision Date: 24 April 1900
• Citation: 57 N.E. 506,62 Ohio St. 500
• Parties: LEGER et al. v. WARREN.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

57 N.E. 506

62 Ohio St. 500

LEGER et al. v. WARREN.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

April 24, 1900

Error to circuit court, Franklin county.

Action by David Warren against Michael Leger and others for damages for wrongful arrest and imprisonment. Judgment for plaintiff was affirmed by the circuit court, and defendants bring error. Affirmed.

The defendant in error, David H. Warren, brought his action in the court of common pleas of Franklin county on the 2d day of February, 1897, against Michael Leger and three other police officers of the city of Columbus and the sureties on their official bonds to recover damages for his unlawful arrest and imprisonment by those officers in January, 1897. The petition alleges: ‘That defendants Michael Leger, Jacob Miller and Andrew Frank did, on or about the 19th day of January 1897, near the hour of midnight of said day, at the home of plaintiff, in the city of Columbus, Ohio, unlawfully maliciously, and without any reasonable or probable cause arrest plaintiff, and with force and violence, and against the will of plaintiff, unlawfully place plaintiff in a patrol wagon, and carried him to the city prison, where plaintiff was, by the defendant Patrick Kelly, chief of police of said city, forcibly, unlawfully, maliciously, and against the will of plaintiff, placed in a cell in said prison, and confined therein from said midnight of said 19th day of January, 1897 to noon of the 25th day of January, 1897; that at the time of his said arrest and imprisonment, and many times thereafter he demanded of said defendants Leger, Miller, Frank, and Kelly that they inform him what crime he was charged with having committed for which he was so arrested and imprisoned, which information said defendants refused to give plaintiff; that many times while so imprisoned plaintiff demanded of the defendant Kelly that written charges be filed against him, and that he have a hearing in the police court of said city on said charges so to be filed,-all of which said defendant Kelly refused to do; and that many times during said false imprisonment plaintiff demanded of said defendant Kelly that he be allowed to have the assistance of an attorney at law to advise plaintiff as to his rights and to secure his release from said illegal imprisonment, which the said defendant Kelly refused to do. Plaintiff further avers that he was by said defendant Kelly unlawfully confined as aforesaid in a cell, the floor of which was, for a period of two days of said confinement, covered with water. On account of said dampness and the unhealthy condition of said cell, plaintiff became violently ill. While he was thus ill, defendant Kelly refused to allow plaintiff the attendance of a physician, although requested so to do by plaintiff. On the 21st day of January, 1897, plaintiff was taken from said cell by defendant Kelly, handcuffed to one of the common prisoners of said prison, and compelled to march with a number of felons along the public streets of said city, in full view of a large concourse of people, to the photograph gallery of _____, at No. 276 1/ 2 South High street, in said city, where he was, by said defendant Kelly, compelled to undergo the shame, humiliation, and disgrace of being photographed as a common felon. Said photograph was so taken by defendant Kelly for the purpose of placing the same in the rogues' gallery, and has, by said Kelly, been exposed to view of a large number of persons whose names plaintiff does not know, and therefore cannot allege the same. Plaintiff was taken by said defendant Kelly from his cell many times, and paraded before a large number of citizens of said city whose names he does not know, and consequently is unable to plead them. Plaintiff further alleges that by reason of said false arrest and imprisonment he has been to great loss and expense, in this, to wit, plaintiff is a paper hanger and decorator by trade, and his services per day in that business are reasonably worth $3.50. The time lost while so imprisoned was reasonably worth the sum of $17.50. He was put to the expense of $25 in securing the services of an attorney at law. By reason of said false arrest and imprisonment plaintiff lost a job of work, the reasonable profits of which were worth the sum of $40. By reason of the wrongs and grievances committed herein by said defendants Michael Leger, Jacob Miller, Andrew Frank, and Patrick Kelly, his business has been damaged, and he has suffered great mental anguish, great humiliation, shame, and disgrace, and much physical suffering. By reason of the premises plaintiff has been damaged in the sum of $5,000.’ The remaining allegations of the petition relate to the execution of the official bonds of the police officers, with their respective sureties, who are made defendants, the condition of each bond requiring that the officer ‘shall pay any and all damages that may be adjudged against him by any tribunal for the illegal arrest, imprisonment, or injury by him of any person while he shall hold said office.’ No objection appears to have been made to the joinder of the sureties in the action at any stage of the case. The answer, which was filed by Patrick Kelly ‘for him and co-defendants, admits that the defendants Michael Leger, Jacob Miller, Andrew Frank, and Patrick Kelly are police officers of the said city of Columbus, Ohio, as described in plaintiff's petition, and that Louis Seidensticker, Joseph Kolb, Joseph B. McDonald, Cyrus Huling, James Ross, Henry A. Reinhard, Dennis Kelly, and John E. Drugan are the bondsmen of said patrolmen. Defendants deny each and every other allegation in plaintiff's petition contained.’ And it avers: ‘That on the 12th of January, 1897, at the city of Columbus, and county of Franklin, Ohio, one Joseph McVey and other persons, whose full names are unknown to this defendant, into a certain storehouse of one Charles Mistereck, there situate, did unlawfully, maliciously, and forcibly break into, with intent then and there and thereby the personal property of said Charles Mistereck, in said storehouse then and there being, unlawfully to steal, take, and carry away, and eighty pairs of shoes, of the value of one hundred and sixty dollars ($160.00), of the personal property of the said Charles Mistereck, in said storehouse then and there being found, then and there unlawfully did steal, take, and carry away. The defendants Patrick Kelly, Michael Leger, Jacob Miller, and Andrew Frank, on or about the 19th day of January, 1897, had good reason to believe and did believe that the plaintiff above named unlawfully and fraudulently did receive the personal property above described belonging to said Charles Mistereck, then lately before stolen, he, the said plaintiff, then and there well knowing said property to have been stolen as aforesaid; and thereupon the said officers, Patrick Kelly, Michael Leger, Jacob Miller, and Andrew Frank, having good ground and reasonable cause to believe that said David H. Warren was guilty of receiving and concealing stolen property knowing it to have been stolen, which crime, as...