Stittgen v. Rundle
| Decision Date | 22 March 1898 |
| Citation | 99 Wis. 78,74 N.W. 536 |
| Parties | STITTGEN v. RUNDLE. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from superior court, Milwaukee county; R. N. Austin, Judge.
Action by John Stittgen against E. K. Rundle and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant Rundle appeals. Affirmed.
This action was brought against Patrick J. Gleason and E. K. Rundle to recover damages for an alleged false imprisonment. The arrest is said to have been without cause and without process of law. The defendants answered, alleging that Gleason was a police officer of the city of Milwaukee; that plaintiff committed a breach of the peace, and that Rundle and one Wolfert informed Gleason of the fact, and thereupon he arrested plaintiff. Henry Wolfert was named as defendant, but was not served. At the close of the testimonythe court charged the jury that plaintiff's arrest was without process, and that, the offense for which he was arrested being a misdemeanor, not committed in view of the officer, the only question for them to determine was whether Rundle directed or caused plaintiff's arrest, and the amount of damages sustained. The jury brought in a verdict for plaintiff for $400 damages against both defendants. A motion for a new trial was denied, and judgment was entered on the verdict, from which the defendant Rundle appeals.
Henry L. Buxton, for appellant.
J. E. Wildish, for respondent.
BARDEEN, J. (after stating the facts).
Some 20 different exceptions were taken to the charge of the court at the trial, but the only ones relied on by appellant are printed in his brief as follows: “A constable or police officer is a conservator of the peace, and has the right to arrest persons for a breach of the peace committed in his view, but he has no right to arrest one who has committed a breach of the peace concerning which he (the officer) has merely the information of third persons, and which was not committed in his view.” This is supposed to be bad law, because it is said to be contrary to an ordinance of the city of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Rhodes
... ... presence, was illegal, even if there was an ordinance ... attempting to authorize such an arrest. Stittgen v ... Rundle, 99 Wis. 78, 74 N.W. 536 ... In an ... Illinois case that court said: ... "A city marshal or other police officer has no ... ...
-
State v. Smith
...Laws of 1969.3 State v. Williams (1970), 47 Wis.2d 242, 253, 177 N.W.2d 611.4 5 Am.Jur.2d, Arrests, p. 718, sec. 28.5 Stittgen v. Rundle (1898), 99 Wis. 78, 74 N.W. 536, cited with approval in Gunderson v. Struebing (1905), 125 Wis. 173, 104 N.W. 149, and Allen v. State (1924), 183 Wis. 323......
-
Scaffido v. State
...of that felony. Mantei v. State, 210 Wis. 1, 4, 245 N. W. 683;Gunderson v. Struebing, 125 Wis. 173, 179, 104 N. W. 149;Stittgen v. Rundle, 99 Wis. 78, 74 N. W. 536;Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 45 S. Ct. 280, 288, 69 L. Ed. 543, 39 A. L. R. 790, 804;Stacey v. Emery, 97 U. S. 642,......
-
Mantei v. State
...been committed in the presence of the arresting officer. Allen v. State, 183 Wis. 323, 197 N. W. 808, 39 A. L. R. 782;Stittgen v. Rundle, 99 Wis. 78, 74 N. W. 536. [2] Since the offense involved in this case was a felony, the question for determination is, Did the officers, in view of what ......