Scott v. Eldridge
| Decision Date | 20 May 1891 |
| Citation | 154 Mass. 25,27 N.E. 677 |
| Parties | SCOTT v. ELDRIDGE et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Exceptions from superior court, Suffolk county JOHN LATHROP, Judge.
Geo. R Swasey and James H. Flint, for plaintiff.
Thos J. Gargan and Patrick M. Keating, for defendants.
The case is, shortly, as follows: A letter came to the defendant Eldridge, who was the chief of the department of inspectors of the police of Boston, from some one who purported to be the chief of detectives of the police of Philadelphia saying that a colored man named Robert Scott, alias George R. Scott, who was described in detail, was wanted, and asking that if found he should be arrested and charged with conspiracy to commit an abortion; adding. "I hold our coroner's warrant." In pursuance of this request, the defendants, Eldridge and Robinson, the latter being an inspector under Eldridge, arrested the plaintiff, detained him for 24 hours, and then discharged him from custody, without any legal complaint having been made or legal process issued. The plaintiff brought this action for the arrest. At the trial the defendants contended that being a party to a conspiracy to commit an abortion was a felony, according to the laws of Pennsylvania, and put in evidence Brightly, Purd.Dig. p. 431, §§ 156, 157; and they asked the court to instruct the jury that, if the defendants had reasonable ground to believe that the plaintiff had committed a felony in Pennsylvania, they were justified in arresting and detaining him. The court refused to give this instruction, and ruled that no justification was shown for the arrest. A verdict was accordingly returned for the plaintiff. The statutes of Pennsylvania which were put in evidence relate to the offense of abortion, and not to that of conspiracy. No statute of Pennsylvania relating to conspiracy being shown, we must go to the common law to ascertain if such a conspiracy is a felony, and by the common law it clearly is not. Regina v. Button, 11 Q.B. 929; People v. Mather, 4 Wend. 229, 265; 2 Bish.Crim.Law, § 240. There was therefore nothing to show that the defendants had any reason to think that the plaintiff had committed a felony. We cannot accept the defendants' suggestion in the argument, that the letter furnished ground to believe that the plaintiff had committed an abortion in Pennsylvania, which is a felony under the statutes referred to. The letter is plain in its request to charge him with a conspiracy, which is an offense of a less grade than felony. Even if the plaintiff had committed the offense of conspiracy in Massachusetts, the defendants would have had no right to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Battles v. State
... ... People, 137 Ill. 612, 27 N. E. 677; Scott v. People, 141 Ill. 213, 30 N. E. 329; Hickam v. People, 137 Ill. 80, 27 N. E. 88; West v. State, 42 Fla. 244, 28 South. 430; 1 Greenl. Ev. § 53; ... ...
- Henry v. People
-
Commonwealth v. Gorman
...arrest form parts of one transaction (Commonwealth v. Hastings, 9 Metc. 259, 263;Leddy v. Crossman, 108 Mass. 237;Scott v. Eldridge, 154 Mass. 25, 27 N. E. 677,12 L. R. A. 379;Eldredge v. Mitchell, 214 Mass. 480, 483, 102 N. E. 69; Price v. Seeley, 10 Cl. & F. 28; R. v. Light, 7 Cox C. C. 3......
-
Park v. United States, 1646.
... ... unless it is given by statute. McLennon v ... Richardson, 15 Gray, 74; Commonwealth v ... O'Connor, 7 Allen, 583; Scott v ... Eldridge, 154 Mass. 25; People v. McLean, 68 ... Mich. 480; 1 Bennett & Heard's Leading Cas. 201; 1 ... Bish. Crim. Proc. (3d Ed.) Secs ... ...