Pandjiris v. Hartman

• Decision Date: 30 May 1906
• Parties: PANDJIRIS v. HARTMAN
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

94 S.W. 270

196 Mo. 539

PANDJIRIS v. HARTMAN

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

May 30, 1906.

1. ARREST — WITHOUT WARRANT — ARREST BY PRIVATE PERSON.

A private person, knowing that one has committed or is committing a crime, may arrest the offender or cause him to be arrested without waiting to procure a warrant.

2. FALSE IMPRISONMENT—DEFENSES.

Where a private person arrests or causes the arrest of another without a warrant, and the arrested party was not guilty, the private person is liable for whatever damages may have been sustained, irrespective of advice of counsel, absence of malice, or reasonable cause for a belief of guilt.

3. MALICIOUS PROSECUTION—DEFENSES.

In an action for malicious prosecution, though plaintiff was innocent, defendant is not liable if he acted without malice, with reasonable cause to believe plaintiff guilty, and on the advice of counsel, to whom all the facts were disclosed.

4. FALSE IMPRISONMENT — ACTION — INSTRUCTIONS—DAMAGES.

In an action for unlawful arrest, an instruction that the jury should award plaintiff such sum as they might believe he ought to recover, not exceeding the amount sued for, was erroneous, and should have limited the recovery to a sum which the jury should find from the evidence was necessary and sufficient to compensate the plaintiff for the injury he suffered; there being no claim in the petition for punitive damages.

5. TRIAL—ERRONEOUS INSTRUCTION CURED BY ANOTHER.

Such error was cured by an instruction that plaintiff could recover only the actual damages sustained.

6. FALSE IMPRISONMENT — INSTRUCTIONS — CHARACTER OF ARREST.

In an action for unlawful arrest, an instruction as to plaintiff's rights in case he was restrained of his liberty "as charged in the petition" was erroneous, as, instead of referring the jury to the petition for the character of the arrest, the instruction should have informed the jury on that point.

7. SAME—EVIDENCE—SUFFICIENCY.

In an action for unlawful arrest, held, that there was no evidence to show that the arrest was made not on a charge of larceny, but because plaintiff refused to leave defendant's store when ordered to do so.

8. SAME—PLEADING—ANSWER—EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE.

In an action for unlawful arrest and false imprisonment, the defendant under the general denial may show that he did not cause the arrest; but he cannot prove that he was justified in doing so, unless he has pleaded the facts in justification.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Daniel G. Taylor, Judge.

Action by Nicholas N. Pandjiris against Charles A. Hartman. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Max F. Ruler, for appellant. T. J. Rowe and Henry Rowe, for respondent.

VALLIANT, J.

Action for unlawful arrest and false imprisonment. The statements in the petition are to the effect that at the request and instigation of the defendant the plaintiff was arrested, imprisoned, and held in confinement for a period of 18 hours "without reasonable cause, and without right of authority to do so, and against the will of this plaintiff." The answer was a general denial.

The evidence on the part of the plaintiff tended to show as follows: The plaintiff had been the owner of a candy store, and was indebted to the defendant in the sum of $1,200, for which defendant held plaintiff's notes, with certain securities. Plaintiff owed some other debts, and, the financial conditions not being entirely satisfactory, the plaintiff made a bill of sale of the whole establishment to defendant, put the defendant in formal possession and his name on the sign in the place of plaintiff's. Plaintiff in his testimony claimed that the transaction was only a conditional sale, under which the business was to be run in defendant's name until he could get the money due him and then to be returned to plaintiff, but that it took the form of an absolute sale because defendant's attorney said it was the only way a valid transaction of that kind could be made. After the execution of this bill of sale, and the ostensible transfer of the business, defendant still retained the securities he held for his $1,200 notes. Plaintiff remained (as he claimed, in charge as owner; as defendant claimed, as employé) in the establishment and collected money in the business. On February 6, 1903, a dispute arose between them about an item of $5.30 which plaintiff had collected that day, and other items amounting to $38 previously collected. Plaintiff refused to turn over the money demanded, and defendant called in a police officer, and told him that plaintiff had committed grand larceny, and requested him to arrest the plaintiff, which the officer did, and further requested the officer to take the plaintiff to the prison and "lock him up," which the officer also did. Defendant went with the officer to the prison, and promised the sergeant of police in charge of the station that he would sue out a warrant the next morning. Plaintiff was taken to prison and incarcerated about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, and held until 11 o'clock the next morning. On that morning defendant applied for a warrant but the prosecuting attorney refused it. When plaintiff was brought before the sergeant of police at the Four Courts, he admitted that he had collected the money, but claimed that it was his money. When the sergeant was informed that the application for a warrant had been denied, he discharged the plaintiff. The substance of the testimony for the defendant was that the sale was absolute and bona fide; that plaintiff was only an employé, and as such had collected the money in dispute and converted it to his own use; that on the morning in question, when defendant demanded the money, plaintiff refused, and defendant ordered him to leave the store, which he also refused to do; then defendant called in the policeman, told him that the plaintiff was a trespasser in his store, and had taken $5.30. "I ordered the officer to do his duty. He arrested him, and I accompanied them to the Four Courts. I told the man in charge that he had taken the money, $5.30, and that he refused to return it." The foregoing is a very brief statement of the facts shown by the evidence in the case, but it is sufficient for an understanding of the law questions involved.

Plaintiff asked three instructions to the following effect: (1) If the defendant caused the plaintiff to be arrested and imprisoned, without process of law, and against plaintiff's will, and so held for a period of 18 hours, the jury should find for the plaintiff, "and assess his damages in such sum as they believe from the evidence he ought to recover, not exceeding the sum of $10,000, the amount sued for in the petition." (2) If the plaintiff was restrained of his liberty at the instance of the defendant, without authority or process of law, then in arriving at a verdict the jury should disregard the evidence offered by defendant tending to prove probable cause and want of malice. (3) If the plaintiff "was restrained of his liberty at the instance of defendant, as charged in the petition," then it was not necessary for the plaintiff to prove malice or want of probable cause....