Roderick v. Whitson

• Court: Superior Court of New York
• Writing for the Court: Dykman, J.
• Citation: Roderick v. Whitson, 4 N. Y. S. 112 (N.Y. Super Ct. 1889)
• Decision Date: 11 February 1889
• Parties: Roderick v. Whitson. Vance v. Hadfield

4 N.Y.S. 112

Roderick v. Whitson.

Vance v. Hadfield

Supreme Court of New York, General Term, Second Department

February 11, 1889

Appeal from circuit court, Dutchess county.

Actions for false imprisonment bye Eddie C. Roderick against John B Whitson, and by John Vance against Levi Hadfield. Plaintiffs appeal.

Judgment in both cases affirmed, with costs.

H. H Hustis, for appellants.

Samuel K. Phillips, for respondents.

Argued before Barnard, P. J., and Dykman and Pratt, JJ. All concur

OPINION

Dykman, J.

The village of Matteawan, in Dutchess county, is a municipal corporation, organized under the general law of the state of New York for the incorporation of villages, passed in 1870. In October, 1886, the board of trustees of the village passed an ordinance of the village which rendered it unlawful for any person to go about or remain in any of the streets or sidewalks of the village beating any drum or tambourine, or making any noise with any instrument, for any purpose whatever, without the written permission of the president of the village, under a penalty of five dollars for each offense. On the 20th day of December, 1887, the plaintiffs in these actions, with a number of other persons, were marching along Main street, in the village of Matteawan, beating a drum, and a tambourine, which is a small drum, and playing upon other musical instruments, and they were arrested by a police constable while so engaged in the violation of the ordinance, without a warrant, and taken to the office of the defendant Whitson, who was a justice of the peace of the town where the village is located. The defendant was not found, and the plaintiffs were confined in the village jail until the next morning, when they were taken before the defendant, and tried and convicted for a violation of the village ordinance, and sentenced to pay a fine of five dollars, and stand committed to the common jail of the county until the fine was paid, not to exceed five days. The plaintiffs were committed to the jail, and discharged the same day by the county judge of Dutchess county upon a writ of habeas corpus. Thereupon the plaintiff Roderick brought an action for false imprisonment against the justice of the peace, and the plaintiff Vance brought the same kind of action against the police constable. The complaints in both actions were dismissed, and there was a stipulation that the decision in one case should control the others, and so the plaintiff Roderick appealed from the judgment in his case.

As the case is presented to us, the justification of the defendants for the arrest and imprisonment of the plaintiffs must be found in the charter and by-laws of the village of Matteawan and we must...