Smith v. Munch
| Decision Date | 23 June 1896 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 10,114 - (306).,s. 10,114 - (306). |
| Citation | 65 Minn. 256 |
| Parties | FRANKLIN D. SMITH v. EMIL MUNCH and Another.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Lewis & Hallam, for appellants.
Francis H. Clarke, for respondent.
The complaint stated three causes of action against the defendants, one for false imprisonment and two for malicious prosecution, viz. for assault and battery, and for disorderly conduct. There being no evidence to connect either of the defendants with the prosecution of plaintiff for assault and battery, that cause of action was properly dismissed by the court, and hence need not be considered.
The record discloses the following facts: The defendant Munch was the superintendent of the shops and yard of the Bohn Manufacturing Company, his duties being to look after the workmen and the work, and see to it that the business was properly attended to. On July 12, 1895, about 25 of the employes (mostly young men and boys) in the box factory "struck," and quit work. Soon afterwards, and on the same day, plaintiff also went out, because he had been ordered to do work which one of the strikers had been doing. New hands were employed to take the place of the strikers. The next day, shortly before the noon hour, about 20 of these strikers congregated in the vicinity of the factory evidently waiting for 12 o'clock, in order to gain entrance into the building for the purpose of inducing the new employes to quit work, either by threats or persuasion. Plaintiff, in company with one of the strikers named Milander, in whose company he had been for most of the day, also came there, and either joined the crowd or waited in close proximity to it until the 12 o'clock whistle blew. Plaintiff's statement is that he went there at the request of his mother, to tell another boy who was working in the shop "not to go out on a strike." Milander's story is that his purpose in going into the factory was "to see some of the old employés, and see what they thought of the new boys who started." When the doors of the factory opened at 12 o'clock, the entire crowd, including plaintiff and Milander, entered the building. Considerable "fuss" ensued. One of the strikers assaulted a young boy who was employed in the shop. The term "scab" was applied to those who had taken the place of the strikers. Persuasion and some threats were used to induce the employes to quit. Some who had struck, and then gone back to work, were upbraided for doing so. Witnesses who claimed to have been eyewitnesses testified that the plaintiff intimidated one of the employes by swearing at him, and saying "if he did not get out of the factory he would fix him after five o'clock," and called the boy a "scab." Plaintiff himself admits, as also does his friend Milander, that he asked the boy "what he wanted to go out on the strike for, if he wanted to go back again." There was also evidence tending to show that, while the crowd was waiting outside, the plaintiff urged some small boys to strike one of the young employés who happened to come outside of the factory.
Defendant Munch was not present during any part of this time, but when he returned late in the afternoon he was informed of the trouble which had occurred during his absence, and was informed by employes who professed to be eyewitnesses, and who, so far as appears, were reliable persons, that plaintiff had committed substantially the acts as above stated. Munch testified that he honestly believed that these parties told the truth, and there is no direct evidence, and, so far as we can discover, no circumstantial evidence, tending to show that he did not believe these statements, or that he did not have reasonable ground for so doing. After these communications had been made to Munch, and about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, plaintiff, his friend Milander, and some others of the strikers, again came to the factory, as they testify, to get pay due them for work. Thereupon Munch called in a policeman, and directed him to arrest the plaintiff and one other of the ex-employes, for participating in the disturbance at noon. He gave this direction without having made any sworn complaint, or having procured any warrant for their arrest. The policeman obeyed the directions, arrested the plaintiff and the other boy, and required them to accompany him to the police station, where plaintiff was required to remain (but without being locked up) for about an hour and a half, until Milander went to plaintiff's home and obtained $15, which he deposited as security for his appearance on Monday morning; it then being Saturday evening. Plaintiff appeared in the police court on Monday morning, as also did Munch, with some witnesses from the factory. A formal complaint under the city ordinance was then made against plaintiff for disorderly conduct, which was sworn to by the boy who had been assaulted during the disturbance on Saturday noon. The case was adjourned for a day or two, when a trial was had, in which, after hearing the evidence on both sides, the court found the plaintiff not guilty.
On the trial of the present action the jury found a verdict against both defendants for $2,000, viz. $1,000 on each cause of action. The court ordered a new trial unless the plaintiff would stipulate to reduce the verdict on the first cause of action (false imprisonment) to $400, and on the second (malicious prosecution) to $300; or $700 in all. The plaintiff having consented to this reduction, defendants' motion for a new trial was denied, and from that order they appealed.
Defendants make the point that there was no evidence that defendant Munch caused, procured, or instigated the prosecution of the plaintiff for disorderly conduct; but we are of opinion that there was ample evidence to justify the jury in finding that the boy made the complaint at the instance of Munch. The point is also made by the Bohn Manufacturing Company that there was no evidence that it was in any way...
To continue reading
Request your trial