Martin v. Magee
| Decision Date | 29 April 1935 |
| Docket Number | 32806 |
| Citation | 182 La. 263,161 So. 604 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | MARTIN v. MAGEE et al |
Appeal from Twenty-Second Judicial District Court, Parish of Washington; C. Ellis Ott, Judge.
Suit by Mrs. Ota Martin against T. A. Magee and others. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
M. J Allen, of Amite, and J. M. Alford, of Tylertown, Miss., for appellant.
Talley & Cassidy, of Bogalusa, for appellees.
Mrs Ota Martin instituted this suit for damages for malicious prosecution, false arrest and imprisonment, etc., against the chief of police and three other officers of the city of Bogalusa. In her petition she alleged that she was arrested on the 9th day of March, 1932, without any warrant and probable cause; that she was subjected to ill-treatment while under arrest and caused great humiliation and mental suffering because of such illegal arrest and confinement in the city jail for three days and two nights, without being permitted to communicate with or see any of her friends; and that said arrest was made with malice on the part of the officers.
A plea of prescription of one year was filed, which the district judge overruled.
Defendants denied the allegations of plaintiff's petition and averred that plaintiff was arrested upon a duly executed warrant for vagrancy and also a letter from the United States authorities, authorizing the apprehension of the plaintiff.
After due trial, plaintiff's suit was dismissed, and she has appealed.
From a careful examination of the evidence, we find that the plaintiff was arrested at the Oaks Cafe, where she was rooming, by three subordinate officers of the city of Bogalusa, upon instructions of the chief of police, who had received a telephonic communication from Cornelius K. Langham, a detective operating under the Treasury Department of the United States, advising him that he was seeking plaintiff in connection with passing counterfeit money and that he (Langham) was on his way to Baton Rouge to secure a warrant for the arrest of plaintiff, and requested the chief of police to apprehend and arrest the plaintiff and hold her in custody for the United States government. This was confirmed by letter, which was received by the chief of police on the 9th day of March.
The evidence is barren of any ill-treatment or abuse of the plaintiff, or that she was not permitted to communicate with her friends. On the contrary, the evidence shows that the chief of police, instead of having her kept with the prisoners, had her placed in an office in the jail and not a cell. There was a telephone in the office and people came in and out. A Mr. Knight was permitted to call on the plaintiff and offered his assistance. In addition, the chief of police, instead of serving plaintiff the meals regularly given to prisoners in jail, had her meals prepared and sent to her from a local restaurant.
After remaining in jail two days and being interviewed by the federal officer, plaintiff was released late in the evening and went home.
Plaintiff has apparently abandoned the contention that the prosecution was malicious, and now contends that she is entitled to recover for false imprisonment under the decision of this court in the case of Wells v. Johnston et al., 52 La.Ann. 713, 27 So. 185. That case is not applicable here. The arrest in the Wells Case was made without requisition papers to authorize or warrant the plaintiff's arrest for an alleged offense committed in another state, as is expressly required by section 1038 of the Revised Statutes.
Plaintiff also cites, in support of her contention, the cases of Smith v. Dulion et al., 113 La. 882, 37 So. 864, and Janes v. Wilson, 119 La. 491, 44 So. 275. In the first case, the plaintiff and the town marshal had been quite unfriendly toward each other and the arrest was clearly one without authority, prompted by ill will and enmity. The second authority presented a case in which the town marshal arrested the plaintiff on a telegram sent to him by a private citizen and later, after having been confined a couple of hours, was instructed by the person who sent the telegram to release the plaintiff....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cox v. Columbia Cas. Co.
...Bakeries, Inc., La.App., 244 So.2d 681 (1971), writ refused, La., 258 La. 352, 246 So.2d 199 (1971). 38. Id., citing Martin v. Magee, 182 La. 263, 161 So. 604 (1935); Cerna v. Rhodes, La.App., 341 So.2d 1157 (1977), writ refused, La., 343 So.2d 1067 (1977); 35 C.J.S. False Imprisonment s 22......
-
Kyle v. City of New Orleans
...in arresting and incarcerating a citizen, they are not liable for damages for false arrest and imprisonment. See Martin v. Magee, 182 La. 263, 161 So. 604 (1935); Cerna v. Rhodes, La.App., 341 So.2d 1157 (1977), writ refused, La., 343 So.2d 1067 (1977); 35 C.J.S. False Imprisonment § 22, p.......
-
Abraham v. Boat Center, Inc.
...to the indignity of a chain without due warrant of law.' 'See also Guilbeau v. Tate, et al. (La.App.), 94 So.2d 896; Martin v. Magee, 182 La. 263, 161 So. 604; Brown v. Dawkins, 2 La.App. 213 and Smith v. Dulion, 113 La. 882, 37 So. 'In Wells v. Johnson (Johnston), 52 La.Ann 713, 27 So. 185......
- Adams v. Ross Amusement Co., Inc