Vice v. Holley

1. False Imprisonment. Arrest without warrant. Mistake in person. An officer is liable for a false imprisonment who, erroneously supposing a person to be wanted for crime, arrests him, without warrant, and places him in jail against his protest. 2. Same. " If an officer, intending to arrest one person, arrest another, he does so at his peril, and is liable therefor, where the party arrested did or said nothing to induce the árrest.

From the circuit court of Harrison county. Hon. William H. Hardy, Judge. Vice, the appellant, was plaintiff in the court below; Holley, the appellee, was defendant there. The suit was for false imprisonment. From a judgment in defendant’s favor the plaintiff apealed to the supreme court. On February 9, 1904, the appellant was on a passenger train on his way to New Orleans. After passing Pass Christian, the appellee, who was marshal of that town, and had boarded the train at that point, approached plaintiff and ashed if he had not been in Pass Christian the week before, to which he answered in the negative. Appellee in no other manner molested appellant until he reached New Orleans, when, aided by a policeman of that city, he arrested the appellant, telling him. that he wajs wanted in Pass Christian on a charge of grand larceny, and that his name was Kelly. Appellant offered to give names of persons who could identify him, but the request was denied. He was taken to the police station, where his description was compared with the description of Kelly, who was ivanted in Pass Christian on a charge of grand larceny, and he was thereafter placed in jail in New Orleans and so kept until the nest day, when he w'as taken, to Pass Christian and there placed in jail, though protesting his innocence of any crime and offering to secure witnesses by telephone who could identify him. On February 11, 1904, he was discharged. The court below gave a peremptory instruction for the defendant. The appellee had no authority to interfere with the liberty of this appellant in the state of Louisiana, even with the aid of a New Orleans policeman, nor did he have authority to bring appellant back into the state of Mississippi and incarcerate him in the jail at Pass Christian. The ruling of the trial court is erroneous. It undertook to establish a new rule of law in direct opposition to the constitution. By the common law, a warrant for the arrest of a person charged with crime must truly name him or describe him sufficient to identify him. If he does not, the officer making the arrest is liable to an action for false imprisonment; and if in attempting to make the arrest the officer is killed, this is only manslaughter in the person whose liberty is invaded. At the outset it will be admitted, as contended by counsel for appellant in. his brief, that as a general rule a warrant must be specific and correctly name the person to be arrested, giving his Christian name, or if his name is unknown, it must so state and must describe him so that he may be identified; but it has been held, however, that under statutes allowing amendments in criminal proceedings and process, where a person has been arrested under a complaint and warrant giving a wrong name, they may be amended so as to give his name correctly. 12 Cyc., 300, title, “O-Name and Description of Accused,” and note 35, title “Amendment” and “Idem Sonans.” And it may be suggested that sec. 1435 of our code of 1892 permits certain amendments to be made of that kind. A plaintiff in an action for false imprisonment may be unable to recover damages because of his own conduct by waiving his rights, or by so conducting himself as to be estopped from seeking judgment for an unlawful detention. There can be no recovery of damages by any person who in any way causes or consents to his own arrest or who acquiesces in its irregularities. 19 Oyc., p. 338; Williamson v. Wilcox, 63 Miss., 335.