Westbrook v. Hutchison
| Decision Date | 15 July 1940 |
| Docket Number | 15127. |
| Parties | WESTBROOK v. HUTCHISON et al. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Hart & Moss, of York, and B. J. White, of Rock Hill, for appellants.
Dunlap & Dunlap, of Rock Hill, and R. B. Hildebrand, of York for respondent.
This is an action for false imprisonment, the occurrence complained of having taken place on July 5, 1937, and the action was commenced on August 7, 1937, in the Court of Common Pleas for York County. The case first came on for trial before Judge Gaston and a jury on May 6, 1938, and resulted in a directed verdict in favor of defendants as to punative damages; but a mistrial was ordered as to actual damages. An appeal was taken by the plaintiff as to punative damages, but was afterwards abandoned, thus eliminating the claim of punative damages. On December 5, 1938, the cause again came on for trial, Judge Featherstone presiding. From his order granting a nonsuit the case came to the Supreme Court, and resulted in a reversal, pursuant to which the cause was remanded for a new trial as to actual damages. See Westbrook v Hutchison, 190 S.C. 414, 3 S.E.2d 207 wherein the opinion was delivered by Mr. Justice Baker; and it contains a very lucid and adequate statement of the legal principles involved, which are applicable to certain issues raised in the instant appeal. While the facts are quite sufficiently stated there for the purposes of that appeal, the court expressly refrained from going into detail because the case was remanded for a new trial; which was had before Judge Bellinger and a jury on December 7, 1939, resulting in a verdict in favor of plaintiff, from which the instant appeal is taken.
The complaint herein sets forth in detail the facts upon which the charge of false imprisonment was based, alleging that the defendants conspired together, aiding and abetting each other; but it is also alleged that each of the defendants "individually and collectively, wilfully and maliciously imprisoned, detained and restrained the plaintiff of his liberty", to his damage in the sum of $5,000. The defendants answered jointly, and in effect the answer is a general denial. Justification is not pleaded, nor is there any other affirmative defense.
The plaintiff, an infant, was then eleven years of age. He lived with his father and mother in the city of Rock Hill, just across the street from the residence of the defendants. On the date in question, to wit, July 5, 1937, the defendant Mrs. Kate J. Hutchison and her daughter, the defendant Miss Kate J. Hutchison, returned to their home after a visit to Myrtle Beach. During their absence the home had been occupied by David Hutchison, a son of Mrs. Kate J. Hutchison, and when they got back he told them that he had seen the plaintiff, Jimmie Westbrook, coming out of the Hutchison home that morning, and that some time after that he had discovered that $21.25 in money, representing rents which he had collected for Miss Kate J. Hutchison, was missing. Shortly thereafter Miss Kate J. Hutchison went over to see Mrs. Westbrook, the mother of the plaintiff, telling her that some one had cut the side screen door and got into her mother's room and had taken this amount of money out of the dresser, and that her brother David had seen Jimmie coming out of the back door. (It should be observed here that the statement in regard to the screen door was admittedly inaccurate, because David Hutchison testified that he had previously cut the screen door himself, and the plaintiff denied having entered the Hutchison home, but said that as he was walking through the Hutchison yard on his way from the home of one of his playmates on that morning he did see David Hutchison.) Mrs. Westbrook told Miss Hutchison that her children were at the picture show, but that as soon as they came in she would make inquiry about the matter.
Instead of waiting to hear from Mrs. Westbrook, however, the defendant Mrs. Eunice Hutchison, wife of the defendant W. C. Hutchison, drove her automobile to the picture theatre where the plaintiff and his little brother Bobbie were, and had them called out, stating to Jimmie that "Kate" wished to see him. She took the children in her automobile to the Hutchison home, and they came with her through the side entrance into the bedroom of Mrs. Kate J. Hutchison. There were present in the room all four of the defendants, except that the defendant W. C. Hutchison went in and out during the time the children were there. Jimmie Westbrook, the plaintiff, was then and there subjected to what might be termed an inquisition with reference to the missing money. He testified as follows:
He also said that all of them took part in the conversation, and that he meant by all of them Mrs. Kate J. Hutchison, Miss Kate J. Hutchison, and Mrs. Eunice Hutchison; and he also said, "Well, they all asked if I would give them the money, and they wouldn't say anything about it".
With reference to the defendant W. C. Hutchison, the plaintiff testified that "he would keep going in and going out"; and also: "He would come in the bedroom and go out."
Neither of the parents of the plaintiff nor any of his relatives were present, or knew anything about this "inquisition" at the time it occurred, except his nine year old brother Bobbie.
The plaintiff further testified that during the course of the interrogation he was asked if he had gotten the money and given it to his elder brother Ed Westbrook, Jr., for whom he worked as a newsboy, and that he told them he had not taken the money or given it to his brother Ed. It appears that it was then decided by the defendants that they would go and see Ed, who was attending a base ball game at a ball park some distance from the Hutchison home; so the defendants Mrs. Eunice Hutchison and Miss Kate J. Hutchison took the two Westbrook children in the car, driven by Mrs. Eunice Hutchison, and they first drove to the Highland Ball Park, and not finding Ed there, then drove to the Aragon Ball Park, where they interviewed him.
Plaintiff testified that when he saw his brother Ed on this occasion the following took place: '
This older brother of the plaintiff testified that he requested the defendants not to mention the matter to his father because he knew it would upset him, his father being sick, and that he said he would come over and try to setle it.
Jimmie and his little brother were then taken to a point within a short distance of the picture show which they had been attending and were left there, being informed by Mrs. Eunice Hutchison that they could return to the show and tell those in charge that she said to let them back in. It appears, however, that they were not allowed to re-enter the show, and that they then walked home.
During that afternoon Ed Westbrook, Sr., father of the plaintiff, went over to the Hutchison home and had an interview with Mrs. Kate J. Hutchison and W. C. Hutchison in regard to the matter, and in the course of their conversation, according to the testimony of plaintiff, Mrs. Kate J. Hutchison said that they did not have the plaintiff arrested because "she did not have proof".
The foregoing statement is based largely upon the testimony of the plaintiff, and it should be said that the testimony of the defendants discloses some conflict in the evidence, but very little as to the outstanding facts. The divergences relate mainly to the inferences to be drawn as to intent, motive and purpose, the contention of the defendants being that there was no coercion and that they exercised no restraint over the plaintiff and that he acted freely and voluntarily in every respect.
At the conclusion of the testimony in behalf of the plaintiff a motion for a nonsuit was made and refused, and at the close of all the testimony a motion for a directed verdict was likewise made by defendants and refused. The jury found in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $3,000 "actual damages and costs". Thereafter a motion for a new trial was duly made and refused; and the cause comes to this court upon 22 exceptions, which are reduced by counsel for the appellants in their statement to nine issues; but by further grouping and consolidating we think they can appropriately be reduced to six questions, each of which will be discussed by us.
(1) The first question arises on the refusal of the motions for a nonsuit and directed verdict, and is: Did the trial judge err in submitting the case to the jury?
In this connection, it might be sufficient simply to refer to the decision of this court on the former appeal, for it is not questioned that the evidence at this trial was substantially the same, so far as the plaintiff's case is concerned, as it was at the trial before Judge Featherstone. Hence it follows that under the law of the case as thus settled neither a nonsuit nor a directed verdict could have been granted. Smith v. Southern Railway, 96 S.C. 153, 79 S.E. 1099.
But aside from this, it is quite apparent from the foregoing statement of the evidence that there was ample...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zimbelman v. Savage
...that she show that by words or acts, Defendant's agents operated on the will of Plaintiff to confine her. Westbrook v. Hutchison, [195 S.C. 101] 10 S.E.2d 145 (S.C.1940). (b) An illegal arrest. A false arrest occurs in the State of South Carolina when there is such an imprisonment as outlin......
-
Wingate v. Postal Telegraph & Cable Co.
... ... testimony as true in determining whether the trial Judge ... erred in submitting this question to the jury. In the case of ... Westbrook v. Hutchison et al., 195 S.C. 101, 10 ... S.E.2d 145, 148, the following statement of the governing ... principles is quoted with approval: "The ... ...
- Scott v. Anderson County