Leonard v. St. Louis Transit Co.

• Decision Date: 14 November 1905
• Parties: LEONARD v. ST. LOUIS TRANSIT CO.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

91 S.W. 452

115 Mo. App. 349

LEONARD v. ST. LOUIS TRANSIT CO.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

November 14, 1905.

1. MALICIOUS PROSECUTION—ARREST OF PASSENGER —TERMINATION OF PROSECUTION.

Plaintiff's petition was in three counts; the first for willful and unlawful ejection from one of defendant's street cars, the second for false imprisonment, and the third for malicious prosecution. The evidence showed that an altercation took place between defendant's conductor and plaintiff in regard to the payment of fare by plaintiff; that the conductor called a police officer and told him that plaintiff refused to pay his fare, but the officer refused to put plaintiff off unless the conductor would prefer a criminal charge. The conductor then preferred a charge of disturbing the peace, and plaintiff was conducted to a police station and locked up. Held that, if plaintiff was guilty of disturbing the peace, then his arrest on the car and commitment to jail were lawful, and he was not entitled to recover without showing that he had been tried and acquitted of the criminal charge, or that it had been dismissed.

2. CARRIERS—EJECTION OF PASSENGER—DISORDERLY CONDUCT.

Although a passenger on a street car has paid his fare, he cannot recover for ejection and arrest at the instance of the conductor, if he was guilty of the offense of disturbing the peace.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Matt G. Reynolds, Judge.

Action by Kemp Leonard against the St. Louis Transit Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Boyle & Priest, for appellant. Wadlow & Gladney and J. B. Dempsey, for respondent.

BLAND, P. J.

The petition is in three counts. The first counts on the willful and unlawful ejection of plaintiff from one of defendant's street cars. The second is for false imprisonment at the instigation of defendant's street car conductor. The third is for the malicious prosecution of plaintiff, without probable cause, on a criminal charge preferred by defendant's conductor against the plaintiff. The evidence shows that plaintiff took passage on one of defendant's street cars, traveling east, on Market street, in the city of St. Louis, and paid his fare to the conductor. After the car had proceeded a short distance, the conductor returned to plaintiff and demanded of him the payment of fare. Plaintiff informed the conductor that he had paid his fare. The conductor insisted that he had not, and a heated altercation arose between them, during which the plaintiff indulged in some profanity and loud talking. The conductor called a police officer, who was sitting in the front end of the car, and told him that plaintiff refused to pay his fare and that he wanted him (the officer) to put the plaintiff off the car. The officer refused to put the plaintiff off because he would not pay his fare, but told the conductor that if he would prefer a criminal charge against the...