Ocean Steamship Co. v. Williams
| Decision Date | 30 January 1883 |
| Citation | 69 Ga. 251 |
| Parties | THE OCEAN STEAMSHIP COMPANY v. WILLIAMS. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
September Term, 1882.
1. A plea of the general issue is a denial of the allegations in the plaintiff's declaration. No evidence is admissible under such plea except such as disproves the plaintiff's cause of action. All matters in satisfaction and avoidance must be specially pleaded.
( a. ) In an action for false imprisonment, a plea which alleged that the plaintiff was at the time one of the defendant's servants, and with others had custody of the goods stolen on the vessel when the larceny was committed that he and his associates alone could have been guilty of the theft, and which particularized all the circumstances which gave the defendant reasonable and probable grounds to suspect the guilt of the plaintiff and to cause his arrest and imprisonment; and which averred that plaintiff was not detained in custody for all unreasonable length of time, was a good plea in justification of the conduct of defendant, and gave the right to open and conclude.
2. By a plea of justification in an action for a tort, the defendant admits the act to be done, and is entitled to all the privileges of one holding the affirmative of the issue including the right to open and conclude the argument.
( a. ) That the plea of justification was not filed until the plaintiff had made out his case and closed his evidence, does not take away the right to open and conclude.
3. In an action for false imprisonment, a plea of justification does not necessarily admit that the imprisonment was wrongful and unlawful. It need only admit the imprisonment and the manner thereof as charged in the declaration. If it admitted the unlawfulness of the detention, it would cease to be a plea, and would amount to a confession of judgment.
4. In an action for false imprisonment, expenses which were the immediate or necessary consequence of the act complained of including counsel fees and costs incurred by reason of the imprisonment, could be taken into consideration by the jury in estimating damages; nor would it be necessary in order for such elements of damages to be considered, to show bad faith or stubborn and litigious conduct, or unnecessary trouble and expense caused by the defendant.
( a. ) Although there was no allegation in the declaration authorizing evidence on these items, yet where evidence concerning them was admitted without objection, the judge properly charged the jury as to its effect. Had any objection been made the declaration could have been amended.
5. There was no error in refusing a non-suit on the first count in the declaration, there being sufficient evidence on that count to carry the case to the jury.
6. An arrest being legal, the person causing it cannot be held responsible for the conduct of the officer or person in charge of the prisoner after the arrest, unless it be shown to have been done by his authority or to have been caused by him.
7. In an action for false imprisonment, if a plea of justification be filed but not sustained, the jury may consider it as authorizing them to give additional damages.
8. There being no allegation in the declaration authorizing the introduction of evidence as to harsh treatment sustained by the plaintiff while confined in the police barracks, or while under arrest and while being carried before the magistrate issuing the warrant, an objection to such evidence should have been sustained. This defect can be cured by amendment but no amendment was offered on the last trial.
9. It is he duty of a person making or causing an arrest to be made, to convey the party arrested without delay before the most convenient officer authorized to receive an affidavit and issue a warrant. This duty is not discharged by delivering the person arrested into the custody of a police officer, who has no authority to take an affidavit and issue a warrant. The imprisonment under such an arrest would not be legal beyond a reasonable time allowed for procuring a warrant; and what constitutes a reasonable time is a question for the jury.
( a. ) The object of the arrest is to carry the prisoner before a magistrate. After a warrant has been issued and the accused has been placed under arrest, a reasonable time will be allowed by the presiding magistrate for making an investigation and procuring the evidence in the case.
Pleadings. Damages. Malicious Arrest. False Imprisonment. Justification. Non-Suit. Evidence. Before Judge HARDEN. City Court of Savannah. May Term, 1882.
Williams brought an action against the Ocean Steamship Company of Savannah. His declaration contained two counts. The first count was for false imprisonment, and alleged that on the 11th day of January, 1882, the defendant, " with force and arms did unlawfully and wrongfully imprison and detain" him " in the police barracks, falsely pretending that he was guilty of the crime of larceny from the vessel; that he was thereby deprived of liberty for twenty-six hours," was greatly harassed and oppressed, subjected to trouble and expense, deprived of employment, his character and reputation damaged, and he was put to great suffering.
The second count was for malicious prosecution.
Defendant pleaded the general issue. The evidence on behalf of the plaintiff was, in brief, as follows: On January 11, 1882, plaintiff, with a number of other colored men, was employed in handling freight on board the steamship " " City of Macon," belonging to the defendant. The " gang" was at work in what is known as the lower between decks. After a time a box was sent up, from which it was alleged that some stockings were missing, and the captain of the vessel ordered that the men be arrested, and not allowed to come up. The captain, quartermaster and a policeman employed about the wharf then searched the men, and searched about the vessel. They found some pantaloons behind a lot of freight in the lower between decks and one pair in the upper between decks. Plaintiff had nothing to do with these, and had done nothing to warrant his arrest. The box from which the stockings were stolen was cracked, but was not broken. The head man of the " gang" reported broken boxes to the quartermaster. Plaintiff testified that the head man called the quartermaster. The head man testified that he did not see the box, being absent at the time. Plaintiff further testified that the box was not sufficiently broken to allow goods to be taken from it. The captain of the vessel sent for the company's agent, and upon his arrival he caused the arrest of the entire " gang," and instructed the police to carry them to the police barracks. Plaintiff was arrested about 12:30 o'clock P. M., and was kept at the barracks until 3 or 4 o'clock the next day. He was then carried to jail; subsequently employed counsel, to whom he agreed to pay $100.00; gave bond and was released. The removal resulted from the fact, that on the day after the arrest the captain of the vessel, under advice from the companys' agent, caused a warrant to be issued. The entire party were handcuffed and tied together, against the plaintiff's request not to be handcuffed. At the time of making the affidavit, the captain of the vessel asked if there was any fear of his getting himself into trouble about this warrant. Afterwards, when the case was called for a committing trial, the attorney of the company stated that he did not have sufficient evidence to warrant his proceeding with the examination, and thereupon the present plaintiff was discharged. While confined at the barracks, his wife was not allowed to bring him dinner, and he was given very insufficient food. There was other evidence as to value of services, loss of time, whether plaintiff was tried before the nearest magistrate, etc., not material here.
On the close of plaintiff's evidence, counsel for defendant moved for a non-suit. It was granted as to the second, but refused as to the first count.
The defendant then filed a plea of justification, setting up as a defence the following facts: At the time of the arrest the plaintiff, as defendant's servant, was engaged in unloading one of the ships of the defendant. Just before the arrest, several pairs of stockings, pants and other articles of clothing in the custody of defendant as a common carrier were feloniously stolen, taken out and removed from the package in which they were delivered to defendant; these articles were found hidden away in the side of the ship, in the lower and upper between decks, to which the plaintiff and the gang with which he worked had access, and where they alone were employed in unloading. These articles were known by plaintiff to have been so stolen, and were feloniously taken and hidden by him with intent to steal the same off of said steamship. Wherefore defendant, having good and probable cause of suspicion, and suspecting said plaintiff to have been guilty of or concerned in the stealing, did give the plaintiff in charge to a police officer and ex-officio constable of the city, and peace officer of the state, and requested him to take the said plaintiff into his custody and safely keep him until he could be carried and conveyed, and carry and convey him before some one of the justices assigned to keep the peace of the state of Georgia, to be examined by and before such justice touching and concerning the premises, and to be further dealt with according to law; and said peace officer then and there did take said plaintiff into his custody, and as soon as conveniently could be done, the said plaintiff was carried in custody to and before M. F. Molina, one of the justices of the peace in and for the county of Chatham in said state, and said plaintiff was by order of said M. F. Molina, justice of...
To continue reading
Request your trial