Shinglemeyer v. Wright

• Decision Date: 18 May 1900
• Citation: 82 N.W. 887,124 Mich. 230
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: SHINGLEMEYER v. WRIGHT.

82 N.W. 887

124 Mich. 230

SHINGLEMEYER v. WRIGHT.

Supreme Court of Michigan

May 18, 1900

Error to circuit court, Wayne county; Willard M. Lillibridge Judge.

Action by Katherina Shinglemeyer against Oliver A. Wright. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant brings error. Reversed.

This is a suit by one Katherina Shinglemeyer against Oliver A. Wright by capias for an alleged slander claimed to have been uttered by defendant to one Henry, a policeman, upon the 16th of July, 1898, and for a false imprisonment which the plaintiff claims to have suffered upon the same day at the hands of the said Henry, acting under the instructions of the said defendant.

The plaintiff's testimony was to the following effect: That previous to April, 1898, she had had trouble with George Wright, a brother of the defendant, living at Columbus; that in April, 1898, she caused the said George Wright to be arrested upon a charge of bastardy, upon which charge he was put under bond, and had also sued him for breach of promise of marriage. It is the claim of the plaintiff that some time in the fall of 1897 or the spring of 1898 George Wright came to the place where she was working, and borrowed $22 from her, and that Oliver Wright, the defendant, was with him, and stood outside of the door. She stated upon cross-examination that she had only seen Oliver Wright once before, and that was in Delaware, Ohio, and that she did not know Oliver Wright well enough to say whether it was Oliver Wright who called with George Wright that night or not. Upon the 3d day of July, 1898, the plaintiff came to Detroit, where Oliver Wright resided, and upon the witness stand claimed that her purpose was to get the $22 which she claimed George Wright had borrowed for defendant's use from her at the time heretofore referred to. She also stated that the moving cause for her coming to Detroit was to see George Wright. Plaintiff claims she went to a boarding house on Henry street, and remained there about three days, having arrived on Sunday and then went to work for Mrs. Goldberg, doing general housework. The following Sunday, the10th of July, she went to the residence of defendant, and asked for George Wright. She testified that she was informed by defendant that George Wright was not there; that she stated who she was, and that she was asked upstairs; that she asked for the money which she claimed George Wright got from her, and that Oliver Wright denied that he knew anything about it; that Oliver Wright at that time advised her to let the court settle her difficulties with his brother, but she stated that she could not wait longer, and had to have something right away. She testified further that at the time Oliver Wright told her to come up to his office in the Chamber of Commerce, and that he would talk the matter over with her; that at that time he made no threats whatsoever, and told her that, if his brother was guilty of the offense as charged by her, she could establish his guilt without question; that she had no reason to believe that Oliver Wright had any malice towards her at that time, except because Oliver seemed to think that she had not let George have any money. Plaintiff claims that upon the 16th day of July--the Saturday following the interview with Oliver Wright at his residence--she went to his office in the Chamber of Commerce Building at about 3 o'clock in the afternoon. George Wright was in the general office, which was situated between the private office of Oliver A. Wright and the private office of R. R. Baines, both of whom used the general office in common. George Wright went from the general office into the one marked 'Mr. Baines,' and immediately thereafter Oliver Wright came into the office from the room into which George had gone. Plaintiff claims that Oliver Wright said, 'Did you bring my wheel back?' and that she said, 'I ain't got your old wheel;' and he said, 'Yes, you have stolen my wheel,' and said that he could prove it. At the time of this conversation there was no one present besides plaintiff and the defendant. She also claims that he stated that he would have a warrant out for her if she did not leave his office. Thereupon she went to the telephone, and called up the central police station, and asked them to send over an officer. She stated that, if she had left the office before she had telephoned, there was no danger of her having been arrested, or a warrant, or anything of that sort, but that she was not going to have him stand there saying that she was a thief, and that she had made up her mind that she was going to make him prove it. After she called up the central police station, she waited for the police to come over for a long while, and made no effort to leave the office. No policeman appearing, she called up the police station a second time and told them again to send over a policeman. She claimed that Mr. Wright was present when she telephoned the second time, and that she could have left the office at that time if she had desired. The officer did not come the second time she called, so she waited half an hour, and called up the police station a third time, and told them to send over an officer. The plaintiff claimed that at some time after she had called up the police station the first time she tried to get out of the office, but could not do so. She at first said it was after she had telephoned the second time. Again, she testified that she called up the second time because she wanted the police to hurry up, and she did not know whether she was locked up at that time or not; that at one time while she was in the office, the police department called up Mr. Wright's office, and Mr. Wright answered the telephone; that while he was at the telephone she could have left the office if she had wanted to, and that she stayed because she wanted to. Finally, she stated that she did not try to leave the office until she had called up the last time. 'Q. As a matter of fact, you did not try to get out before the second time [you telephoned]? A. I don't believe I did. Q. You are certain of that? A. Yes, I am certain. Q. As a matter of fact, you did not call up the police department the second time because you could not get out? A. No, I think that the reason I called up the second time, or the third time, was because I wanted them to hurry.' After she had called up the police station the third time, and no officer had come, she left the office without any interference upon the part of the defendant, went down the elevator, and near the door met the policeman Henry. She testified that there was nothing to prevent her going to the Goldbergs', or any other place, at that time. Instead of that, she brought the policeman back to Mr. Wright's office, and herself stated to the policeman that Mr. Wright accused her of stealing his wheel, and that she wanted to see whether he could do so. The policeman went into Mr Wright's private office, and said something which the plaintiff did not hear; and witness testified that there was nothing to prevent her leaving the office at that time if she had wanted to. She also testified that Mr. Wright stated that she did steal the wheel, and that he (Mr. Wright) wanted her to be taken over and locked up. She testified that the policeman told her that she had to go along with him. There is no evidence in the case that Mr. Wright was present when any such thing was said to the plaintiff, if it was said. The plaintiff testified that she went over to the police station with the officer, and was asked a few questions there, and then was taken down by the two detectives to the Brush Street Depot, to be identified; that the baggageman at the Lake Shore station said she was not the woman who had checked a man's wheel to Toledo on the evening of the 10th, and that the detectives then put her on the car, and she went home. Upon the following day the plaintiff testifies that she went up to the defendant's residence, with a rubber hose, and that she was going to thrash him; that she did not start to thrash Oliver, but did start to thrash George; that she commenced to thrash him without saying a word, and George took the rubber hose away from her, without using any more force than was necessary. Plaintiff testified that she on that day (Sunday) told Oliver Wright that he had accused her of stealing his wheel, and that she was going to make it mighty hot for him some time. She testified that Oliver Wright told her that if she would go to Columbus he would fix everything all right, and that they would come for her that night, and that they did so. She testified that they came up to see her that same evening, and that she agreed to go to Columbus the next morning. She went down to the station the next morning, but did not have the money to pay her fare; that neither the defendant nor his brother had the money to give her to buy a railroad ticket, and that she thereupon went back to the defendant's office, where he gave her four dollars, and stated that he would loan it to her, and she gave a receipt for it as a loan; that she left that afternoon for Columbus, and stayed there just one Week. Plaintiff claimed that at one time defendant had called her 'a crazy old thing,' but when that was, or in whose presence it was uttered, she did not know. Plaintiff testified, when asked when she had first made up her mind to sue the defendant, that she told her attorney the 2d of January, 1899, that she wanted to get it started before she went home; that she had thought of it all along, but that she was not ready. She was then asked the question when she had first made up her mind to begin the suit, and she answered, 'I had it in my mind all the time.' Subsequently she was asked whether she intended to bring this suit before the 1st of...