Wahl v. Walton

• Decision Date: 20 June 1883
• Citation: Wahl v. Walton, 30 Minn. 506, 16 N.W. 397 (Minn. 1883)
• Parties: Hans Wahl v. Swan Walton
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

16 N.W. 397

30 Minn. 506

Hans Wahl v. Swan Walton

Supreme Court of Minnesota

June 20, 1883

Action for false imprisonment, brought in the district court for Hennepin county.Trial before Young, J., and a jury, and verdict of $ 350 for plaintiff.Defendant appeals from an order refusing a new trial.

The offence for which plaintiff was arrested by defendant was disorderly conduct, in violation of a city ordinance.The evidence showed that plaintiff was disorderly at noon of the day of the arrest, in the presence of defendant, who then made no effort to arrest plaintiff.About six o'clock of the same day, defendant, meeting plaintiff, arrested him and committed him to the police station, where he was compelled to pass the night.On the following day, being brought before the municipal court of Minneapolis, plaintiff pleaded guilty and was fined $ 5.Plaintiff's disorderly conduct at noon arose from interfering to protect his son, a boy engaged in selling apples, from the attacks of a crowd of boys including defendant's son, whom, it is claimed, plaintiff struck.

Order affirmed.

Benton & Pittman, for appellant.

Ueland & Shores, for respondent.

OPINION

Gilfillan, C. J. Gen.

St 1878, c. 105, § 11, provides: "A peace officer may, without a warrant, arrest a person -- First, for a public offense committed or attempted in his presence; second, when a person arrested has committed a felony, although not in his presence; third, when a felony has in fact been committed, and he has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it; fourth, on a charge made, upon reasonable cause, of the commission of a felony by the party arrested."

This action is for false imprisonment.The defendant justifies the imprisonment as upon an arrest of plaintiff, made by him, then a police officer of the city of Minneapolis, without a warrant, for a violation, in his presence, of an ordinance of that city.There was evidence tending to show that, about noon, the plaintiff violated the ordinance in the presence of defendant.The defendant did not then attempt to make the arrest, but went about his other duties during the afternoon, and arrested plaintiffat 5 or 6 o'clock in the evening.There was also evidence tending to show that plaintiff was committing a similar violation of the ordinance at the time of the arrest.The court instructed the jury, in effect, that if plaintiff was, at the time of the arrest, committing a violation of the ordinance, that would justify the arrest, though without a warrant, but that defendant had no authority to arrest in the evening for a violation at noon.

At the common law, a constable might, without warrant, arrest for a breach of the peace committed in his view.4 Bl. Com. 292.But it was well settled that in case of an offence not a felony, the arrest must have been made at the time of, or within a reasonable time after, its commission.Regina v. Walker, 25 Eng.Law &Eq. 589;Cook v. Nethercote, 6 C. & P. 741;Clifford v. Brandon, 2 Camp. 358;Derecourt v. Corbishley, 5 El. & Bl. 188;Phillips v. Trull, 11 John. 486;Taylor v. Strong, 3 Wend. 384;Meyer v. Clark, 41 N.Y.S. Ct. 107.In case of felony actually committed, although not in his presence, h...