Newman v. New York, L. E. & W. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 07 November 1889
• Citation: Newman v. New York, L. E. & W. R. Co., 7 N.Y.S. 560 (N.Y. Super Ct. 1889)
• Parties: Newman v. New York, L. E. & W. R. Co
• Court: Superior Court of New York

7 N.Y.S. 560

Newman v. New York, L. E. & W. R. Co

Supreme Court of New York, General Term, First Department

November 7, 1889

Appeal from circuit court, New York county.

Appeal from a judgment on a verdict for plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial.

Judgment and order reversed, and a new trial directed, with costs to the defendant, to abide the event.

Charles Steele, for appellant.

J Delahunty, for respondent.

Daniels J. All concur.

OPINION

Daniels, J.

The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of $ 500, as damages for his arrest and detention by the act of a person in the employment of the defendant as a detective. The arrest was made at the depot of the defendant where the plaintiff was awaiting the departure of a train on which he had purchased a ticket and sleeping berth to Lackawaxen. After his arrest he was taken before a police sergeant and detained in custody during the night, and upon his examination on the following morning and his identification by a reputable citizen of New York he was discharged by the justice. The cause assigned for his arrest was his general suspicious appearance. The evidence as to this was obtained in some degree from the plaintiff himself, but it was chiefly given by the witnesses sworn on behalf of the defendant. The detective who is alleged to have made the arrest, or directed the making of the arrest, testified that the plaintiff had on a rubber suit, and a hood, part of which came down upon his face, leaving his mouth and that part of it right under his nose only visible; that there were holes in the hood through which he could see; that he had a mustache on, which was on one side, and the witness pulled it off, and when his cap was off he could see that he had false whiskers. He was regarded as a suspicious and disorderly person, and for that reason the arrest was made. In his possession was a paper box which contained bottles of liquid substances, rags in an oily condition, and 8 or 10 wax tapers; and upon these facts he was detained by the sergeant before whom he was taken. The court held the arrest to have been without legal authority and unlawful, and for which the defendant was liable in damages if it was made by an officer of the defendant employed for this purpose. This ruling of the court seems, under the authorities, to have exceeded the legal rule, for there were circumstances in the case, connected with the plaintiff's appearance and the contents of the box in his possession and the statements made by him, from which it might be inferred that he was a person who either had committed, or was contemplating the commission of, a crime. At least, the evidence upon this subject was sufficient to present that inquiry to the jury, and the court was in error in taking it from their consideration by the decision which was made. It did not appear what was the law in the state of New Jersey upon this subject; but, as the common law is presumed to prevail there, the officer was authorized to make the arrest if the facts were such as to indicate the plaintiff to have been either a criminal or a person contemplating the commission of a felony. This principle was considered in Beckwith v. Philby, 6 Barn. & C. 635, where it was held that an officer was authorized to make the arrest and detention of an individual when there was reasonable cause to suspect that he had either committed a felony or was about to commit one, having in his possession the implements proper and necessary for that purpose; and whether the party arrested was accompanied by such circumstances as to warrant the belief that he was a criminal, or probably intended the commission of a felony, was a question for the jury, and not for the court. The same general principle was followed in Lawrence v. Hedger, 3 Taunt. 14, and it has the sanction of Eanes v. State, 6 Humph. 53, and Holley ...