Sigmon v. Shell

• Decision Date: 13 May 1914
• Docket Number: 571.
• Citation: 81 S.E. 739,165 N.C. 582
• Parties: SIGMON v. SHELL.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

81 S.E. 739

165 N.C. 582

SIGMON v. SHELL.

No. 571.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

May 13, 1914

Appeal from Superior Court, Catawba County; Cline, Judge.

Action by George S. Sigmon against R. B. Shell. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

This action was brought to recover damages for the unlawful arrest and false imprisonment of the plaintiff by the defendant. The arrest was made for the violation of an ordinance of the city of Hickory forbidding drunkenness and cursing in a public place in said city. Plaintiff alleges that the defendant, a policeman of the city, arrested him, without a warrant, for cursing and being drunk on the streets, when neither charge was true, and defendant says that he was drunk and cursing on the streets near Abernathy's stables. There was much evidence offered to sustain the allegations of the respective parties. Under the evidence and charge of the court, the jury returned the following verdict: "(1) Did the defendant wrongfully and unlawfully arrest the plaintiff and restrain him of his liberty, as alleged? Answer: Yes. (2) Did the defendant wrongfully and unlawfully assault the plaintiff and injure his arm, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: Yes. (3) What damage, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover of the defendant? Answer: The sum of $600." Judgment was entered thereon, and defendant appealed.

An instruction requiring the jury to be "satisfied" as to the facts of justification relied on to defeat an action for false arrest and imprisonment does not require too great a degree of proof to establish justification.

A. A Whitener, of Hickory, for appellant.

W. A Self, of Hickory, and S. H. Jordan, of Conover, for appellee.

WALKER J. (after stating the facts as above).

An inspection of the record will show that this case was carefully tried below, and the issues, evidence, and law bearing thereon were so clearly and fully explained by the learned judge, who presided at the trial, to the jury, that we do not think there could have been any misunderstanding of the questions involved.

Many exceptions were taken to the charge of the court, but it appears therefrom that the court instructed the jury in strict accordance with the principles, applicable to such cases, which have been settled by this court. The charge is supported by this statement of the law, by Chief Justice Smith, in State v McNinch, 90 N.C. 699: "In making an arrest upon personal observation and without warrant, the officer will be excused when no offense has been perpetrated, if the circumstances are such as reasonably warrant the belief that it was (Neal v. Joyner, 89 N.C. 287), and the jury must judge of the reasonableness of the grounds upon which the officer acted." There can be no question that the judge stated the law, in this respect, with sufficient clearness, and gave the defendant the full benefit of it.

With the exceptions relating thereto settled adversely to the defendant, there is really nothing left but an issue of fact which the jury have decided against him, unless there was error in that part of the charge where the court instructed the jury that, as defendant pleaded justification of the arrest, the burden was upon him to establish the defense to the satisfaction of the jury by a preponderance of the evidence. Defendant had no process for the arrest, and he committed an assault unless, in some way, he can excuse or justify his conduct, and, too, the question of his good faith and the reasonableness of his acts were in issue, and these called for proof from him. "The onus of justification in issue primarily rests with the defendant." 19 Cyc. 363, and cases in note; Jackson v. Knowlton, 173 Mass. 94, 53 N.E. 134; M. C. Railway Co. v. Gehr, 66 Ill.App. 173; Edger v. Burke, 96 Md. 715, 54 A. 986; Snead v. Bonnoil, 166 N.Y. 325, 59 N.E. 899; Franklin v. Amerson, 118 Ga. 860, 45 S.E. 698. In Jackson v. Knowlton, supra, the lower court charged that "the burden of proof, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, was upon the plaintiff to show that 'the defendants did not have, at the time of the arrest and imprisonment, probable cause to believe that the plaintiff was guilty of a felony,' " and the reviewing court said: "We are of opinion that this instruction was wrong, and that the jury should have been instructed in accordance with the plaintiff's contention. It was long ago said by Lord Mansfield: 'A gaoler, if he has a prisoner in custody, is prima facie guilty of an imprisonment; and therefore must justify.' Badkin v....