Wright v. Hoover

Citation211 Mo. App. 185,241 S.W. 89
Decision Date22 May 1922
Docket NumberNo. 14385.,14385.
PartiesWRIGHT v. HOOVER et ux.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Charles R. Pence, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by Ella Wright, by her next friend, Lucy Wright, against Alvin Boyd Hoover and wife. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Milford W. Rider and Victor S. Weber, both of Kansas City, for appellant.

Milton Schwind, of Kansas City, for respondents.

BLAND, J.

This is a suit for false imprisonment. At the close of plaintiff's evidence the court marked "Given" defendants' instruction in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence, whereupon plaintiff took an involuntary nonsuit with leave. Plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the nonsuit, which was overruled, and she has appealed.

The facts show that plaintiff was a negro girl employed as a servant In the home of the defendants; her duties being general housework, to help with the cooking, and to take care of the baby. In the summer of 1919 defendants' baby was teething; and to pacify him defendant Mrs. Hoover gave the baby her ring. The ring disappeared, and about three weeks thereafter plaintiff while upstairs in the bathroom of defendants' residence heard Mrs. Hoover, who was in an adjoining house, telephoning to some person, whose identity is not disclosed by the evidence. She heard Mrs. Hoover say to such person:

"I think Ella [plaintiff] and Cordelia know something about the ring, and have two detectives come out and come to. O. U. Hoover's house, right across the way."

O. U. Hoover was a brother of defendant Alvin Boyd Hoover, and the latter's house was next door to the former's. Cordelia was a negro girl working in the same neighborhood. There is no evidence as to what resulted from this conversation or whether any detective came.

Plaintiff went home and related to her mother the conversation she had overheard, and her mother refused to permit her to return to work. Some time afterwards defendant Mr. Hoover called up plaintiff's mother and asked her to come to his house and bring plaintiff. The mother came, bringing plaintiff and Cordelia with her. An interview was had at defendants' house.:Defendant Hoover discussed the loss of the ring and stated to the three negro women that "he didn't know who had the ring, but he said whoever had the ring he was going to have them prosecuted to the full extent of the law." "He said that ring lay between his wife and his brother-in-law and Ella," and he said that "I don't want to say my brother-in-law took it, because he has more money than have got." At this conversation Mrs. Hoover said "that she didn't know anything about the ring. The interview ended up by Hoover stating that "he was going to turn It over to the hands of the law"; that "there wasn't but one thing to do, and that was to turn it into the hands of the law." During the conversation Hoover stated that if the ring was found that plaintiff could come back to work.

The next day about 2 p. m. police officers of the Kansas City police department came to plaintiff's house and without a warrant arrested her and her uncle and then arrested Cordella, taking them in a patrol wagon to the police station, where they were detained for some time, being questioned in regard to the loss of the ring, when they were released.

Plaintiff' insists that the court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the evidence, and we think the point to be well taken. In cases of this kind it is not necessary to show that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT