Taaffe v. Slevin

• Decision Date: 07 March 1882
• Citation: 11 Mo.App. 507
• Parties: MARY E. TAAFFE, Respondent, v. CHARLES SLEVIN, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

11 Mo.App. 507

MARY E. TAAFFE, Respondent,

v.CHARLES SLEVIN, Appellant.

St. Louis Court of Appeals, Missouri.

Mar. 7, 1882.

1. A peace officer may, without a warrant, arrest for a breach of the peace or for a misdemeanor committed in his presence, but has no authority to arrest for a misdemeanor, on mere suspicion or at the request of another.

2. One at whose request a police officer makes an arrest for a misdemeanor, in the absence of evidence that the misdemeanor was committed in the presence of the officer, must, to justify himself, show that the charge leading to the arrest was well founded.

APPEAL from the St. Louis Circuit Court, ADAMS, J.

Affirmed.

MARSHALL & BARCLAY, for the appellant: The petition does not state a cause of action. Regarding it as an action for false imprisonment, it does not allege want of reasonable or probable cause, and does not show that the arrest was unauthorized.-- Burns v. Erben, 40 N. Y. 463; Taaffe v. Kyne, 9 Mo. App. 15; 111 Mass. 492; 2 Chitty's Pl. 600; Larke v. Bande, 4 Mo. App. 186. Regarding the case, on the other hand, as an action for malicious prosecution, the petition is defective in not stating that the arrest and prosecution were without probable cause.-- Cottrell v. Richmond, 5 Mo. App. 588; Casperon v. Sproulc, 39 Mo. 39. And by also omitting the allegation that the same were malicious.-- Vansickle v. Brown, 68 Mo. 627. The arrest was made by an officer having power to make it. Such being the case, the only complaint that could be maintained against one who directed or requested the officer thus to use the power given him by the law, would be on the ground of malicious prosecution. False imprisonment cannot be predicated on such facts.-- Taaffe v. Kyne, 9 Mo. App. 15; Henry v. Lowell, 16 Barb. 268; Burns v. Erben, 1 Robt. 555; 40 N. Y. 462; 1 Waterman on Tres., sects. 307, 367; 106 Mass. 289; 4 E. D. Smith, 445.

A. R. TAYLOR, for the respondent.

BAKEWELL, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

The petition in this case is as follows:--

“The plaintiff, M. E. Taaffe, complains of the defendant, Charles Slevin, and for cause of action states that on the seventh day of December, 1879, and for many years prior thereto, she was a resident of the city of St. Louis, Missouri, and enjoyed and possessed a good name and fame among the citizens of said city; that on said day the defendant wickedly contriving to injure plaintiff, and to bring her into public scandal and infamy, and to oppress the plaintiff, did request, direct, and cause a police officer of the city of St. Louis, without any warrant or authority of law, to arrest the plaintiff while she was peaceably on Pine Street between Fourteenth and Fifteenth Streets, in said city, as she might lawfully be, and did request, direct, and cause said police officer to restrain plaintiff of liberty, and to carry plaintiff through the streets of said city under arrest from said point on Pine Street to the building on Clark Avenue, between Eleventh and Twelfth Streets, in said city, known as the “Four Courts;” that said defendant did at the Four Courts make a charge against the plaintiff, and did request the police officer to incarcerate the plaintiff, which said police officer did refuse to do, and thereupon the plaintiff was discharged from said arrest, and said police officer did refuse to hold the plaintiff on said charge, and disregarded said charge. The plaintiff says that by reason of said arrest, and of being restrained of her liberty as aforesaid, and of being carried under arrest through the streets of the city as aforesaid, she has been greatly injured in her good name and fame; that she has thereby suffered great pain and anguish of mind, and shame and mortification, and has been damaged in the sum of $5,000, for which sum she asks judgment.”

The answer, after a general denial, proceeds as follows:

“And for further answer defendant states that, at the time stated in the petition as that of plaintiff's arrest, she was wilfully disturbing the peace of defendant and his family by loud and unusual noise, and by loud and offensive conversation; and further, she was disturbing the peace by noisy and disorderly conduct on the public streets of the city of St. Louis, and was at that time disturbing the peace of defendant and of his family, and of other persons, by violent, offensive, and obstreperous conduct, and by loud noise, and by unseemly and offensive language calculated to provoke a breach of the peace, all in the city of St. Louis, and while so engaged was arrested by a police officer of the city of St. Louis duly authorized by law to make arrests for such offence.”

It appeared from the evidence that plaintiff was an old family servant, having been for a period of twenty years in the service of different members of the Slevin family, by whom she was brought from Cincinnati to St. Louis; that defendant was the brother-in-law of Bernard Slevin, in whose family plaintiff had been a nurse for ten years; that Bernard Slevin had failed in business, and, at the time of his failure, owed plaintiff some money deposited by her with him, amounting, as she says, to about $3,000; that after his failure, Bernard Slevin lived in defendant's house; that plaintiff went, on many occasions, to defendant's house to dun Bernard Slevin for money; that this became annoying to defendant's family, and that they brought policemen into the house on one occasion, and directed them to arrest her, which the policemen refused to do. Plaintiff says that both Bernard Slevin and defendant promised her repeatedly that if she would keep quiet about what Bernard Slevin owed her, it would be made right to her, and that defendant had promised her that he would see her righted. A short time before the occurrence which gave rise to this suit, plaintiff was informed that Bernard Slevin had made a conveyance of certain real estate to defendant's wife. On the Sunday after she heard this, she went to the church which defendant attended, and followed him, after church, to his house, asking him to convey to her some of this property in payment of what Bernard Slevin owed her. Defendant says that she then threatened to follow him the next Sunday in the same way. This is denied by plaintiff. Defendant, fearing such annoyance, applied, on Saturday, December 6th, at the police station for a policeman to protect him from annoyance if these solicitations were renewed at church on the next day. A policeman was detailed for this purpose. On the next Sunday plaintiff followed defendant out of church, to his house, about three blocks distant, and, when they arrived in front of defendant's house, she was arrested by the policeman at the request of defendant. She was taken to the station-house, and, defendant there refusing to prefer any charge against her, she was cautioned and discharged.

As to what passed on the Sunday of the arrest, the testimony is conflicting. Plaintiff testifies that she spoke in a low voice, without any vehemence of language or gesture; that she made merely an humble appeal to defendant on account of her long and faithful service in the family, her extreme need, her sickness and inability to help herself, his former promises, and the supposed fact that his wife had recently received a conveyance from Bernard Slevin, of real estate,--that on these...