Wiltse v. Holt
| Decision Date | 26 May 1884 |
| Docket Number | 11,402 |
| Citation | 95 Ind. 469 |
| Parties | Wiltse v. Holt |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Rush Circuit Court.
The judgment is reversed, with costs, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
W. A Cullen and B. L. Smith, for appellant.
Action by Drury Holt, Jr., against Oliver Wiltse, Nathan J. Foust and J. Murray Rawls, for false imprisonment.
Wiltse answered separately in three paragraphs. The second paragraph was in general denial, and the first and third set up special matters in defence, to which demurrers were severally sustained.
The plaintiff obtained a verdict and judgment against Wiltse for the sum of $ 198, but failed in his action against Foust and Rawls. Wiltse, appealing, complains only of the decisions of the circuit court sustaining demurrers to the first and third paragraphs of his answer.
The first paragraph averred that on the 24th day of November 1882, the time at which the appellee complained that he was unlawfully arrested and imprisoned, he, the said defendant Wiltse, was the duly elected, qualified and acting marshal of the town of Carthage, an incorporated town of the county of Rush, in this State; that on that day the appellant found the appellee within the corporate limits of said town in a state of intoxication; that not to exceed two minutes before the appellant had so found the appellee, the latter had entered the office of one Bogart, in said town of Carthage, and assaulted and violently beaten him, the said Bogart, having at the same time a pistol upon his person which he tried to use upon said Bogart; that the appellant, having knowledge that the appellee had previously threatened the life of Bogart, and hearing the disturbance in the latter's office, and seeing the appellee emerge from the office in an intoxicated condition, and wild with excitement and anger, arrested him, and put him in a lock-up, informing him that as soon as he became sufficiently sober he, the appellant, would take him before a justice of the peace and prefer charges against him; that within three hours after his arrest the appellee was taken before a justice of the peace, where a charge was preferred against him for an assault and battery upon the said Bogart, to which he, the appellee, pleaded guilty, and for which he was adjudged to pay a fine.
The third paragraph set up, substantially, the same facts, except...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anderson v. Foster
...Iowa 145, 33 N.W. 607; Pepper v. Mayes, 81 Ky. 673; Hutchinson v. Sangster, 4 G.Greene, Iowa, 340; Scircle v. Neeves, 47 Ind. 289; Wiltse v. Holt, 95 Ind. 469; Schoette v. Drake, 139 Wis. 18, 120 N.W. 393; see also 35 C.J.S., False Imprisonment, § 31, note 29, p. 547; 79 A.L.R. 20, 21. This......
-
Hopewell v. State
...make such arrests before the statute was enacted, and it cannot be said that this statute has in any way curtailed that duty. See Wiltse v. Holt, 95 Ind. 469; Smith, Sher. 38. It is provided by section 2105, Burns' Rev. St. 1894 (section 2018, Horner's Rev. St. 1897), that any officer under......
-
Veneman v. Jones
... ... violate the law or ordinances of a city in their presence, ... without warrant. Wiltse v. Holt, 95 Ind ... 469, and cases cited; State v. Freeman, 86 ... N.C. 683; Beville v. State, 16 Tex. Ct ... App. 70; State v. Holcomb, 86 Mo ... ...
-
Hopewell v. State
...make such arrests before the statute was enacted, and it can not be said that this statute has in any way curtailed that duty. See Wiltse v. Holt, 95 Ind. 469; Sheriffs, etc., 38. It is provided by section 2105 Burns 1894, section 2018 Horner 1897, that any officer under the Constitution or......