Stephenson v. Baldwin Cotton Mills

• Decision Date: 26 July 1920
• Docket Number: 10472.
• Citation: 103 S.E. 710,114 S.C. 367
• Parties: STEPHENSON v. BALDWIN COTTON MILLS.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

103 S.E. 710

114 S.C. 367

STEPHENSON v. BALDWIN COTTON MILLS.

No. 10472.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

July 26, 1920

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Chester County; Thomas S Sease, Judge.

Action by W. A. Stephenson against the Baldwin Cotton Mills. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Gaston & Hamilton, of Chester, for appellant.

Hemphill & Hemphill and S.E. McFadden, all of Chester, for respondent.

WATTS J.

This was an action for damages. The case was tried before Judge Sease and a jury at the fall term of court, 1919, for Chester county, and resulted in a verdict for plaintiff for the sum of $1,000. After entry of judgment, appellant appeals, and by five exceptions imputes error.

The suit was for false arrest. The exceptions allege error in admitting over their objection evidence attacking the warrant, and as to conversation of Industrial Constable Garner at the time of the arrest. The exceptions contend that defendant is not liable for the acts of Industrial Constable Garner, and that the warrant is valid on its face; that the magistrate, who issued the warrant, and Garner, who procured the same, are alone liable for the irregularity in the warrant, and the suit cannot be maintained; that the suit should have been on the official bond of Garner, or for malicious prosecution; and in refusing defendant's motion for a directed verdict and motion for a new trial.

When certain testimony was objected to during the progress of the trial, his honor said:

"I will allow it to come out, and if it doesn't connect with the defendant I will rule it out."

After that no motion at all was made, at any time, to strike out any of the testimony objected to. So it went to the jury as competent evidence for their consideration. Defendant, though warned by the court that it would strike out evidence objected to, unless the plaintiff connected it with the subject of agency, did not avail itself of this right and made no motion to strike out.

The proof showed positively that the constable knew the warrant was defective. The constable was not acting as an industrial constable, but as a special constable, for the warrant had this indorsed on it:

"I hereby appoint B. M. Garner special constable to execute the within process.

W. H. Shannon, Magistrate."

Industrial Constable Garner went out of his bailiwick 1 1/2 miles and arrested the plaintiff, not by virtue of being an...