Singleton v. Kansas City Baseball & Exhibition Co.

• Decision Date: 02 June 1913
• Citation: 157 S.W. 964
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Parties: SINGLETON v. KANSAS CITY BASEBALL & EXHIBITION CO.

157 S.W. 964

SINGLETON v. KANSAS CITY BASEBALL & EXHIBITION CO.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

June 2, 1913.

Rehearing Denied June 23, 1913.

1. TRIAL (§ 327) — VERDICT — PARTIES LIABLE.

A verdict in an action for false arrest brought against a baseball company and its president and a detective agency and its president and others, read, "We, the jury, find the issues for the plaintiff and against defendants, T. as president of the Kansas Baseball and Exhibition Company and L. as president of the National Detective Agency and assess plaintiff's damages at the sum of $250." Held, that the verdict was fatally uncertain as to the parties against whom the jury intended to find.

2. TRIAL (§ 339) — VERDICT — CERTAINTY — CORRECTNESS.

An ambiguous verdict cannot usually be aided by judicial construction after judgment, but the only safe way of correcting an ambiguity in a verdict is for the trial court, at the time of rendition, to call the attention of the jury to it, and to have the corrections made before the verdict is received.

3. TRIAL (§ 331) — VERDICT — CERTAINTY.

The verdict should be certain as to the person against whom it is rendered as well as to the amount of damages awarded.

4. FALSE IMPRISONMENT (§ 31) — ACTION — SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE — ARREST.

Evidence in an action for false arrest held to sustain a finding that plaintiff was actually arrested by an officer.

5. FALSE IMPRISONMENT (§ 5) — "ARREST" — WHAT CONSTITUTES.

To constitute an arrest, it is not necessary to handcuff the person arrested or take him forcibly, and it is an arrest if, under a manifestation of authority, an officer commands the person to go with him, and takes him to the place where persons arrested are usually taken, if the one arrested goes in submission to such authority, and not voluntarily.

6. FALSE IMPRISONMENT (§ 39) — ACTION — SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE.

Evidence in an action for false arrest against a baseball association held to make it a jury question as to whether plaintiff's arrest was within the scope of the employment of the detective association employed by the baseball association for keeping order in its grounds.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; E. E. Porterfield, Judge.

Action by Robert O. Singleton against the Kansas City Baseball & Exhibition Company and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant named appeals. Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Hadley, Cooper, Neel & Wilson, of Kansas City, for appellant. Martin J. O'Donnell, of Kansas City, for respondent.

TRIMBLE, J.

In this case damages are sought to be recovered for an alleged unlawful arrest and imprisonment of plaintiff by defendants. The defendant Kansas City Baseball & Exhibition Company is a corporation, and the defendant George Tebeau is its president, the defendant National Detective Agency is a corporation, and the defendant Walter B. Laughlin is its president; the defendant Eugene Sullivan was a member of the police force in Kansas City as was the defendant Edward P. Boyle, who was acting as inspector of detectives. At and prior to the time of the alleged arrest and imprisonment, the defendant Kansas City Baseball & Exhibition Company was maintaining a baseball park in Kansas City where professional games of baseball were played, and to which the public was admitted at various gates upon the presentation of tickets showing the admission fee had been paid. Some months before the alleged arrest, Tebeau, as president of, and acting for, the Kansas City Baseball & Exhibition Company, employed Laughlin and his National Detective Agency to be present at the gatherings in the park for the purpose of maintaining order, the prevention of betting, infraction of the rules, and anything likely to annoy the patrons of the game. While engaged in this service Laughlin was requested by Tebeau to investigate the admission of spectators through the turnstiles to the game by the various gatekeepers. Laughlin did this, and by "checking" the number of spectators admitted with the number shown by the turnstiles found "irregularities," in this: That various persons were admitted free of charge or paid the admission money to the gatekeeper, instead of to the ticket seller. These irregularities, and the gates at which they were found, were reported in writing to Tebeau.

The plaintiff was a ticket taker at the bleacher gate on the Olive street entrance to the baseball park. On the evening of July 3, 1910, Tebeau, after receiving these reports, was temporarily in Kansas City, and spoke to Laughlin about having plaintiff Singleton investigated. In this conversation Tebeau suggested having Singleton brought to police headquarters where he could be questioned. He also said he knew Boyle, the inspector of detectives at headquarters, and would have him to assist them; that he would see Mr. Boyle for the purpose of having him bring Singleton to headquarters. Tebeau did see Boyle that evening, and spoke to him on the subject. Laughlin also, pursuant to his conversation with Tebeau about investigating Singleton at the city hall or police headquarters, saw Boyle and spoke to him about Singleton. And an arrangement was made that, when Singleton was brought to the inspector's office, Laughlin would come down and participate in the examination. The next day, July 4th, when the plaintiff appeared at the park to take his place as a ticket taker at the gate, he was told by Savage, the general manager at the park, to stay in the office, and "work extra around." Plaintiff took off his hat and coat, hung them in the office, and, after being there for 15 or 20 minutes, the defendant Eugene Sullivan, a policeman, and in his uniform, came up and took hold of plaintiff by the arm, saying "Your name is Singleton?" Plaintiff replied, "Yes, sir." The policeman asked, "Got your hat and coat here?" Plaintiff replied, "Yes, sir." The policeman then said, "Get your hat and coat and come with me; the inspector wants to see you." Plaintiff got his hat and coat, and asked Savage what it was they wanted with him. Savage replied that he did not know; they had called up by telephone, and said they would be out after him. Plaintiff then went with the policeman to the police station. When they got there, according to plaintiff, "Mr. Boyle and Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Laughlin and another gentleman...