Witham v. Gregory & Read Co.
| Decision Date | 27 January 1923 |
| Citation | 243 Mass. 595,137 N.E. 752 |
| Parties | WITHAM v. GREGORY & READ CO. LEGASSE v. SAME. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Essex County; Nelson P. Brown, Judge.
Actions by Harry Witham and by Joseph Legasse against the Gregory & Read Company for false arrest and malicious prosecution. Directed verdict for defendant in each case, and plaintiff brings exceptions. Exceptions overruled.
Coughlin & Jacobs, of Lynn, for plaintiffs.
Hurlburt, Jones & Hall and Herbert U. Smith, all of Boston, for defendant.
These are actions for false arrest and malicious prosecution. The plaintiffs were arrested on the charge of vagrancy by the chief of police of the town of Framingham, tried upon complaints signed and sworn to by a police officer of that town, and discharged after trial in the district court. There was evidence tending to show that the plaintiffs, both residents of Lynn and members of a shoe workers' union in Lynn, one being business agent and the other shop collector, went late on a June afternoon by train from Boston to Framingham, where was a shop of the defendant past which they walked and one of them on a public way talked with some employees of the defendant as they were leaving work. One of these, a shoe worker in the defendant's factory, told the Framingham police of the presence of the plaintiffs and that they were interfering with the help of the defendant. Later a police officer at the railroad station, in the presence of one of the superintendents of the defendant who had charge of the production at its Framingham shop, asked the plaintiffs to go to the police station, the superintendent following them and saying there to the chief of police that one of the plaintiffs ‘had tried to put something over, but they had him with the goods.’ There the plaintiffs were questioned by the chief of police, and, when one of the plaintiffs remarked to the other that he hoped they would not be detained so that they could not get their train, the superintendent said, ‘That won't get you anything.’ Both of the plaintiffs knew the superintendent, one having worked in a factory of the defendant in Lynn, and one of them referred the chief of police to him as one who knew all about them. The chief of police talked with the superintendent, but there was no evidence as to the conversation.
There is no evidence to warrant a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. Brown v. Wimpenny, 239 Mass. 278, 132 N. E. 43.
The burden of proof was upon the plaintiffs to show that their arrest and trial were caused by an agent or agents of the defendant acting in its behalf within the scope of their authority. Moscot v. Frank Ridlon Co., 216 Mass. 193, 103 N. E. 293;Mason v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Limone v. U.S.
...to have instituted criminal proceedings against another if he caused those proceedings to be initiated. See Witham v. Gregory & Read Co., 243 Mass. 595, 137 N.E. 752, 752 (1923); Mason v. Jacot, 235 Mass. 521, 127 N.E. 331, 333 (1920); Tangney v. Sullivan, 163 Mass. 166, 39 N.E. 799, 799-80......
-
Correllas v. Viveiros
...166, 167, 39 N.E. 799 (1895). See Seelig v. Harvard Coop. Soc'y, 355 Mass. 532, 536, 246 N.E.2d 642 (1969); Witham v. Gregory & Read Co., 243 Mass. 595, 597, 137 N.E. 752 (1923). However, the defendant must have, in some sense, initiated the prosecution. The mere transmission of information......
-
Jordan v. C.I.T. Corp.
...acting within the scope of his employment. Brown v. Boston Ice Co., 178 Mass. 108, 59 N.E. 644,86 Am.St.Rep. 469;Witham v. Gregory & Read Co., 243 Mass. 595, 137 N.E. 752;Henriques v. Franklin Motor Car Co., 260 Mass. 518, 157 N.E. 580. The note had been indorsed by the company to the corpo......
-
Ducey v. Brunell
...278, 132 N. E. 43;Skerry v. Rich, 228 Mass. 462, 117 N. E. 824;Lajoie v. Milliken, 242 Mass. 508, 136 N. E. 419;Witham v. Gregory & Read Co., 243 Mass. 595, 137 N. E. 752. See Roosen v. Peter Bent Brigham Hospital, 235 Mass. 66, 71, 72,129 N. E. 392,14 A. L. R. 563. The present case is dist......