Newton v. Locklin

• Decision Date: 31 January 1875
• Citation: 77 Ill. 103,1875 WL 8270
• Parties: WILLIAM NEWTONv.FRANK LOCKLIN.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

77 Ill. 103

1875 WL 8270 (Ill.)

WILLIAM NEWTON

v.FRANK LOCKLIN.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

January Term, 1875.

WRIT OF ERROR to the Circuit Court of Piatt county; the Hon. C. B. SMITH, Judge, presiding. Messrs. CREA & EWING, for the appellant.

Mr. P. A. HAMILTON, and Mr. S. R. REED, for the appellee.

Mr. JUSTICE BREESE delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was an action of trespass assault and battery and false imprisonment, brought to the circuit court of Piatt county, by Frank Locklin, and against William Newton, Christopher Williams, Harvey Bensley, Samuel Templin and Joseph Idleman, of whom Williams and Idleman were not served, and the action was dismissed as to Templin.

As to the other defendants, Newton and Bensley, the cause was submitted to the jury without any pleadings by them, under a stipulation that they might introduce in evidence all such matters and things as would be admissible under pleas properly pleaded.

The jury found for the plaintiff, against Newton and Bensley, and assessed his damages at three hundred and twenty-five dollars.

The defendants moved for a new trial, whereupon the plaintiff remitted one hundred and twenty-five dollars, and the court overruled the motion and rendered judgment for two hundred dollars, and the defendant Newton appeals.

The points made by appellant are: 1. That the judgment is against the law and the evidence. 2. That the damages are excessive.

The facts are, briefly, that Williams and Bensley, as special policemen, without any warrant, arrested plaintiff on the street in the town of Bement, he then peaceably passing along the street on his own legitimate business, stopping at a corner where a crowd was gathered. In spite of plaintiff's demand for their authority, he was forcibly taken before Newton, the police magistrate and justice of the peace. The only pretense for this arrest, as we understand the testimony, was, that plaintiff had, on the morning or middle of that day, been on the street in a state of intoxication, and making loud noises, but had gone home, slept off his debauch, and in the evening went in search of his cow. Williams had been instructed by Templin, the marshal of the town of Bement, to “arrest the plaintiff when he came down that evening, drunk or sober.”

When brought before the magistrate, who was at the time engaged in making out an order for a change of venue in a small case for the violation of a town ordinance, the plaintiff demanded a trial, and the authority under which he was arrested, and being told by the magistrate his case would soon be attended to, he became very abusive and insolent to the magistrate, who thereupon ordered him to be committed to the calaboose for a contempt of court, where he was taken by Idleman and Williams, and retained over night, and this is the cause of this action.

That the verdict is against the evidence, is not apparent. Here was a citizen, no matter how bad his habits or character may have been, arrested while quietly pursuing his business, and with no charge against him, and without a warrant, and confined in the town...