Tully v. Dasher

• Decision Date: 02 July 1968
• Docket Number: No. 257,257
• Citation: 244 A.2d 207,250 Md. 424
• Parties: Ruby L. TULLY et al. v. Laverne DASHER et al.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 424

250 Md. 424

244 A.2d 207

Ruby L. TULLY et al. v. Laverne DASHER et al.

No. 257.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

July 2, 1968.

Hugh L. Reilly and Arthur V. Butler, Washington, D. C., (Butler & Gorman, Edward J. Gorman, Jr. and James R. Reynolds, Wheaton, on the brief) for appellants.

Arthur D. Leach, Hyattsville, (Sorrell & Paulson, Richard S. Paulson and W. Byron Sorrell, Hyattsville, on the brief) for appellees.

Before HAMMOND, C. J., and HORNEY, MARBURY, BARNES, McWILLIAMS, FINAN and SINGLEY, JJ.

BARNES, Judge.

The appellant, United Investment Management Corporation (United), is the rental agent for the Pennbrooke Apartments located in Suitland, Prince George's County. It signs the leases with the tenants as landlord. Mrs. Ruby L. Tully, the other appellant, is employed by United as resident manager of Pennbrooke Apartments and had been so employed since November 7, 1964.

The appellees, Mrs. Laverne Dasher and Mrs. Dona Mae Talbott, were tenants in two separate apartments in the Pennbrooke Apartments on Saturday, January 16, 1965, having possession of their respective apartments under similar leases which had been automatically converted into month to month tenancies after their respective one-year terms had expired. Mrs. Dasher, her husband Charles Dasher, and their daughter Sherry, then aged fifteen, occupied apartment T-2 in 5088 Silver Hill Court and Mrs. Talbott, also a daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Dasher, occupied apartment T-1 in 5044 Silver Hill Court with her husband Pearson Talbott, and her two girls, one three years of age and the other eight years of age.

The appellees, Mrs. Dasher and Mrs. Talbott, were plaintiffs below in an action against United and Mrs. Tully to recover damages resulting to the plaintiffs from malicious prosecution. The case was tried by a jury and resulted in verdicts of $15,000 in favor of Mrs. Dasher and $10,000 in favor of Mrs. Talbott, respectively. This appeal was timely taken from a judgment entered upon those verdicts.

United and Mrs. Tully, the appellants, raise several questions before us. These questions involve alleged errors of the lower court in refusing to grant motions of the defendants for directed verdicts, the alleged improper argument to the jury by counsel for the plaintiffs and the alleged errors of the trial court in ruling on evidence in five regards. We will first consider the facts generally and then other facts under the discussion of each of the alleged errors.

On Saturday, January 16, 1965, Mrs. Dasher and Mrs. Talbott sponsored a birth-day party for Sherry Dasher and her teenage friends at the Dasher apartment, T-2, and also utilized the adjacent laundry room, 669 square feet in size (35 feet long with a varying width from 17 to 23 feet), for the party. Mrs. Dasher had obtained permission for a similar party, utilizing the laundry room, the previous year from Mrs. Beverly J. Henkle, the predecessor as resident manager of the apartment house of Mrs. Tully, so that she did not apply to the management for additional permission for the party to be given on January 16, 1965. The birthday party began at approximately 7:00 p. m. on January 16 with approximately twelve persons attending, of whom eight or more were teenagers, the others being adults chaperoning the party. It was a cold day and was snowing so that several of the guests, who had been invited for 5:00 p. m., were late in arriving at the party. A small portable record player was used, playing rock and roll music, at a moderate sound level.

One of the tenants at the Pennbrooke Apartments (not produced at the trial as a witness) apparently complained about the party. The complaint ultimately reached Mrs. Tully who requested Nicholas Uhal, a maintenance engineer for the Pennbrooke Apartments, to investigate the party going on in the Dasher apartment and adjacent laundry room. When Mr. Uhal came to the laundry room, he requested that the music be turned down and suggested that the party be moved into the Dasher apartment. The music was turned down and the guests began to move the party into the Casher apartment. Mr. Uhal then returned to Mrs. Tully's apartment-approximately one block from the laundry room-and reported to her that a party was in progress. Mrs. Tully then called the Prince George's County Police and the two police officers who responded to her call accompanied Mrs. Tully and Mr. Uhal to the laundry room. When they arrived, no music was playing and the room was empty. Mrs. Tully thought the party had ended. After some of the guests, Mrs. Dasher and Mrs. Talbott had entered the laundry room, Mrs. Tully, without identifying herself, demanded in a loud voice that they 'get the hell out' of the laundry room and stop the party. Thereafter there was a vigorous exchange of strongly worded statements between Mrs. Tully and Mrs. Dasher. Mrs. Dasher attempted to explain that she had received permission from Mrs. Henkle, the resident manager, to hold a birthday party in the laundry room and was not aware that Mrs. Tully had replaced Mrs. Henkle as the resident manager. Mrs. Dasher testified that Mrs. Tully stated, during the course of the exchange, that she was going to have Mrs. Casher arrested. The testimony then was as follows: "I asked her what for * * * I didn't do anything wrong.' And she said, 'Well, I am going to have you arrested anyhow.' And I said 'Well you can't.' She said 'United Investors told me I could."

The police officers requested Mrs. Dasher to take the party into her apartment. When Mrs. Tully, Mr. Uhal and the two officers left, the transfer of the party to the Dasher apartment was completed.

Officer Blankford, one of the two police officers who testified for the defendants, testified that no one was disorderly in his presence and that he had informed Mrs. Tully that if the party was continued, was loud and disturbed anyone, 'then she could contact the Justice of the Peace to secure a warrant for disorderly conduct by disturbing the peace, but they weren't disorderly in my presence.' Shortly thereafter, Mrs. Tully telephoned Janet Kurland, the secretary-treasurer of United, who authorized her to swear out warrants for Mrs. Dasher and Mrs. Talbott. Without further communication with either Mrs. Dasher or Mrs. Talbott and without checking to see if the party had been discontinued in the laundry room, Mrs. Tully drove six miles (a round trip of twelve miles) to the Suitland Police Station through the heavy snow and swore out warrants for Mrs. Dasher and Mrs. Talbott before a Justice of the Peace, charging them with disorderly conduct. These warrants were forwarded to the police to be served and were in fact served at 1:30 a. m. Sundry morning January 17, 1965. Following service, Mrs. Dasher and Mrs. Talbott dressed, were taken into custody, placed in the police wagon with neighboring tenants watching, and taken to the police station where they were booked for disorderly conduct, posted bond and were released.

When the two criminal cases came before the People's Court for Prince George's County on March 15, 1965, both defendants were found not guilty.

On January 26, 1965, ten days after the birthday party, Mrs. Tully personally handed Mrs. Dasher an eviction notice charging her with disorderly conduct and ordering her to vacate the Dasher apartment. The Dashers did this and Mrs. Talbott and her family moved from their apartment because of their fear of what Mrs. Tully and United might do to them if they remained as tenants with Mrs. Tully as resident manager.

Mrs. Dasher and Mrs. Talbott employed counsel to defend them against the criminal charges at a cost of $200. Mrs. Dasher lost one week's work because of her upset condition following her arrest and both plaintiffs had to incur moving expenses and pay $8.50 each as a bond premium in connection with the criminal charges. Mrs. Dasher suffered stomach irregularities resulting from the tension caused by her arrest and removal from her home in the middle of the night and Mrs. Talbott experienced tension headaches. Neither Mrs. Dasher nor Mrs. Talbott had ever had any criminal charges placed against them and both suffered great embarrassment because of the permanent record of the criminal charges placed against them as a result of the warrants having been sworn out against them.

On cross-examination, when examined in regard to the alleged disorderly conduct, Mrs. Tully testified as follows:

'Q. In what way would you say that Mrs. Talbott and Mrs. Dasher were disorderly, taking them one at a time?

'Q. Mrs. Talbott first, please. A. Mrs. Talbott was siding in with her mother and agreeing with her, that they started bringing up things that had happened that was not material to what was going on in the basement there, and well, I felt that she--it was not concern of hers, that she did not live there, and I felt that she had no say so of what I was trying to restore peace and quietness in the building, and the intimating remarks, I was nobody, not mess with her, she is nobody, you don't have to listen to her, and things of this nature.

'Q. Did Mrs. Tablott tell you you were a nothing? A. She-she said I was nothing, I was new.

'Q. Mrs. Talbott? A. Yes.

'Q. Is this the reason you swore out the warrants? A. That is right.

'Q. You felt that they did not show proper respect for your authority and position? A. I felt they didn't show me respect, regardless of my authority or position.

'Q. And that is the reason that you felt they were disorderly? A. They were disorderly in refusing to remove the equipment from the laundry room, telling me I couldn't make them move it from there.

'Q. But the main reason was this disrespect? A. Not disrespect. I didn't appreciate being called a nothing-.'

We will now consider the alleged five errors of the trial court on the admission of certain evidence.

1.

The first claim of error of the trial court in ruling on the evidence was permitting Mrs. Henkle, a witness for the...