Vaughn v. Hines
| Decision Date | 03 May 1921 |
| Citation | 230 S.W. 379,206 Mo.App. 425 |
| Parties | R. T. VAUGHN, Respondent, v. WALKER D. HINES, Director General of the ST. LOUIS, SAN FRANCISCO RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Dunklin Circuit Court.--Hon. W. S. C. Walker, Judge.
AFFIRMED (On Condition.)
W. F Evans and Ward & Reeves for appellant.
(1) We take up the first two assignments together, to-wit: (1) The court erred in refusing defendant's instruction No. B. in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence at the close of all the evidence in the case; and, (2) the verdict of the jury is against the evidence, the weight of the evidence, and the law under the evidence. Billingsley v. Kline Cloak Co., 196 Mo.App. 534; Vansickle v. Brown, 68 Mo. 627; Stubbs v. Mulholland, 168 Mo. 47. (2) We shall only call the court's attention here to a remark found at the bottom of page 18 of the abstract, which was as follows "Overruled; you got him into prison, and he has a right to tell how he got out." This remark of the court was made on account of an objection just made to a statement attributed to the marshal while the plaintiff was in his custody. We think the ruling of the court was wrong, and most certainly his remark showed lack of even temper and unbiased attitude in the trial. State v. Davis, 225 S.W. 706; State v. Kyle, 225 S.W. 1012; Rooker v. D. S.W Ry. Co., 226 S.W. 69. (3) The court erred in submitting the case upon the theory that the plaintiff had made a case justifying exemplary or punitive damages. The court therefore erred in refusing defendant's instruction No. 7. to the effect that the plaintiff could not recover exemplary or punitive damages. There is no substantial evidence in this record that the conductor of the defendant acted in bad faith or maliciously. All the evidence shows that the conductor merely asked the plaintiff to turn the seats, as the rules of the company did not permit the seats to face each other in the car. The plaintiff himself admits that, without any reasonable excuse or provocation, he refused to turn the seats and arose from his seat and drew his knife. He admits that he was mad. Three witnesses swear that the plaintiff opened his knife and these witnesses are corroborated by several others who say they saw plaintiff doing something with his hands behind him as if opening his knife. Under these circumstances the plaintiff was not entitled to any punitive or exemplary damages. Maloy v. Railway Co., 178 S.W. 224; State v. Jungling, 116 Mo. 165; Berlin v. Thompson, 61 Mo.App. 734; Lewis v. Jannonpoulo, 70 Mo. App., 329; Wehmeyer v. Mulvihill, 150 Mo. App., 197; Hill v. Kresge Co., 202 Mo.App. 385; Vest v. S. S. Kresge Co., 213 S.W. 165; Billingsley v. Kline Cloak Co., 106 Mo.App. 534.
Smith & Seed, for respondent.
(1) The court properly refused defendant's instruction numbered B in the nature of a demurrer at the close of all the evidence and the verdict of the jury is in keeping with the evidence. The plaintiff made a prima facie case when it was shown that defendant's agent had caused his arrest and detention without a warrant and all the testimony shows that the plaintiff was arrested without cause and that he did not threaten the conductor and did not violate the law in that way. Pandjiris v. Hartman, 196 Mo. 548; Hanser v. Bieler, 271 Mo. 326; Tiede v. Fuher, 264 Mo. 629; Wehmeyer v. Mulvihill, 150 Mo.App. 205; Thompson v. Bucholz, 107 Mo.App. 121. "An officer making an arrest is absolved from any liability, if he had reasonable grounds to suspect that a crime had been committed by the plaintiff, even though it may afterwards turn out that he was not guilty, but the only justification which the individual or unofficial citizen could invoke would be that the party arrested is actually guilty." Harris v. Terminal Ry. Ass'n, 218 S.W. 686; Pandjiris v. Hartman, 196 Mo. 539; Hauser v. Bieber, 271 Mo. 326; Leve v. Putting, 196 S.W. 1060. (2) The court did not err in making prejudicial remarks in the presence of the jury. The particular remark complained of at the bottom of page 18 of appellant's abstract were excepted to by the appellant and the exception sustained. Appellant's abstract, p. 19. (3) It was not error to refuse defendant's instruction No. 7. There was substantial evidence that the arrest was without just warrant under the law. It was a question for the jury to determine whether plaintiff was entitled to punitive damages. Pandjiris v. Hartman, 196 Mo. 548; Hanser v. Bieler, 271 Mo. 326; Tiede v. Fuher, 264 Mo. 629; Wehmeyer v. Mulvihill, 150 Mo.App. 205; Thompson v. Bucholz, 107 Mo.App. 121; Summers v. Keller, 151 Mo.App. 626.
Respondent recovered a judgment against the defendant for the sum of $ 1,000 actual and $ 1,000 punitive damages. The judgment is based upon a petition charging that the defendant had caused the false imprisonment of the plaintiff, and further charging that in doing so it acted maliciously, wrongfully and unlawfully. The plaintiff sought compensatory as well as exemplary damages. The petition originally was in two counts, but at the close of the evidence the first count was dismissed. The only answer filed by the defendant was that of a general denial.
The facts of the case, appearing from the record, are that on the 26th day of July, 1919, the plaintiff in company with his wife and four or five children boarded one of defendant's trains at St. Louis, bound for Senath, Mo., his home, which is also on defendant's line. He had purchased his tickets and he and his family were rightfully on the train. On seating himself and family he went to the end of the passenger coach and turned twoof the seats, thereby making four seats all facing each other. He and his wife sat in two, and facing them they placed two very small children. The other children were across the isle with a relative of plaintiff's wife. Shortly after the train left St. Louis, the colored porter came through and noticed the plaintiff had turned the seats, as we have described, and informed him that it was against the rules of the defendant to do this and asked him to turn them back. The plaintiff, in answer to the porter, told him that he would wait until the conductor came through and see if he could not keep them that way owing to the fact that he had two very small children with him. The train on which he was traveling left St. Louis about 9:00 o'clock at night. When the conductor came through, he noticed the seats being turned and informed the plaintiff that he would have to turn them back. Plaintiff made some protest and asked the conductor if it was against the law to turn them or merely against some rule of the defendant. He was informed by the conductor that it was against the rules.
We are stating the facts most favorably to plaintiff in this opinion, as it is our duty to do when considering the defendant's contention that its demurrer to the evidence should have been sustained. In this first talk with the conductor about the seats it appears there was not much difficulty between the two. Plaintiff, however, did not turn the seats back, and in a few minutes the conductor appears again and, according to plaintiff, in a rough manner told him to turn the seats back, and again plaintiff protested and did not do it. He got up out of his seat and he and the conductor were both standing. He testified that the conductor, when he spoke to him in a rough manner, ran his hand in his left pocket and that when he, plaintiff, saw him do that he plaintiff, took his knife out of his pocket, but plaintiff testified that he never at any time opened the knife. He is corroborated on this point by witnesses, and the testimony offered by the defendant is that he took his knife out, opened it and threatened to cut the conductor. Plaintiff's testimony further shows that the seats were not turned at this time, and that a man by the name of Walls, who apparently was a relative of plaintiff's wife, came up to them and advised them not to have any trouble. The conductor passed on and then Walls went out and talked to some one and came back and told plaintiff that it was against the law to keep the seats as he had turned them, and plaintiff then turned the seats back, as the conductor told him. That he supposed there would be no more trouble, and nothing more was said about it until the train reached Crystal City, something like 30 or 40 miles from St. Louis, and when it reached that point the conductor came to the door with the Marshal of the town and pointed out the plaintiff. The marshal took hold of plaintiff's arm and told him he must get off. Plaintiff protested to him that he had done nothing but offered no resistance to the officer. When he got off the train the plaintiff says the conductor informed the marshal that plaintiff had drawn his knife on him and threatened to cut him. The marshal took charge of the plaintiff and held him until about 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning, he having arrested him at the instigation of the defendant's conductor about 10:30, when the train reached Crystal City. Plaintiff was not placed in jail but was kept in custody of the officer until 2 or 3 o'clock, when he was permitted to deposit $ 15. for his appearance the next morning and no longer kept in custody of the officer. In the meantime the marshal and defendant's station agent were wiring to defendant's headquarters relating what had been done and asking for advice. No word was received, and about 8 o'clock the next morning, no word having come and no charge having been placed against the plaintiff, his $ 15. was returned to him and he was permitted to go on to his home. The evidence shows that no charge was ever placed against the plaintiff, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial