Pessagno v. Keyes
| Decision Date | 25 June 1923 |
| Docket Number | 14. |
| Citation | 122 A. 651,143 Md. 437 |
| Parties | PESSAGNO v. KEYES. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Baltimore City Court; Walter I. Dawkins, Judge.
"To be officially reported."
Action by Lawrence J. Keyes against Anthony Pessagno. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before BOYD, C.J., and THOMAS, PATTISON, URNER, and OFFUTT JJ.
Arthur R. Padgett, of Baltimore (Charles Jackson, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.
S Ralph Warnken, of Baltimore, for appellee.
The only exception presented by the record in this case relates to the rulings of the trial court on the prayers.
The facts are simple and few and may be briefly stated: On the night of December 8, 1920, Lawrence J. Keyes, then employed as a cab driver by the Yellow Taxicab Company, received a call to go to the Ensor Café, 601 Ensor street, Baltimore. When he arrived there in answer to the call, he was met by Ethel Blum, who requested him to go to Middleburg, near Middle River in Baltimore county. As they were going there they found an automobile belonging to the appellant, Anthony Pessagno, "ditched." Pessagno lived in Balitmore City and had an interest in the Ensor Café, and also owned a number of "shores," waterfront lots improved by dwellings, near Middle River, which he rented. On the occasion referred to above, he was returning from a visit to these shores, where he had gone to collect the rents, when he drove his car into a ditch. He then tried to ask his wife over the telephone to come down for him in a cab. He was not able to reach his wife and the message was received by a Miss Blum, who was formerly employed by him and knew him very well. When she received the message, she said: She then called for a taxi, and when Keyes came in response to the call she went with him to Pessagno. When they reached Pessagno's car, he told them to go to Bennett's shore about a mile away and wait for him. He joined them there later and there they remained for several hours. Keyes then, at Pessagno's order, drove them to the Ensor Café. Keyes was on the front seat and Pessagno and Miss Blum were on the rear seat. When they reached there, Pessagno gave Keyes a torn $10 bill and a $5 bill in payment of the cab fare. A few minutes later he cried out: A policeman was then sent for, and when he came Pessagno demanded that Keyes and the woman be searched. The policeman refused to search them there, but took them to the Northeastern Police Station, where Pessagno laid a charge of larceny against them. They were then searched, and no money of the defendant was found on either of them except the money he had paid Keyes for the hire of the cab. Keyes was then locked up in a cell for the night. The next morning Pessagno came to the station house and told the police magistrate "it was all a mistake, that he had been drinking, and he did not want to prosecute anybody." Keyes was thereupon discharged.
Pessagno in the course of his testimony said he never had accused either Keyes or Miss Blum of taking his money, that he knew the girl was honest, and that Keyes could not have taken it because he was not on the seat with him. He denied that he had ever charged Keyes with the theft or prosecuted him. After his release Keyes, through his attorney, demanded that Pessagno compensate him for the injury done him as a result of the charge brought against him by Pessagno, and upon his refusal to comply with that demand, Keyes brought this action in the Baltimore City court. The trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff, from which the defendant has appealed.
At the conclusion of the testimony in the trial below the plaintiff offered two prayers, which were granted, and the defendant five, of which two were refused and the others granted.
In dealing with these prayers we will treat the facts to which we have referred as established. It is true the defendant denies many of them, but since we are passing upon a demurrer to the evidence we must disregard that conflict and accept as true any relevant and material evidence found in the record which supports the plaintiff's claim, and we have so dealt with it in stating the facts of this case.
The plaintiff's first and second prayers are free from objection and were properly granted. The defendant contends that he was prejudiced by that part of the plaintiff's first prayer by which the jury were instructed:
"That if they shall find from the evidence that the plaintiff was arrested, tried, and acquitted in the Northeastern Police Station of Baltimore City on the charge...
To continue reading
Request your trial