King v. Johnston

False imprisonment: Malicious prosecution: Malicious abuse of legal process: Pleading. 1. In an action for false imprisonment the complaint should allege facts showing that the imprisonment was extra-judicial or without legal process. 2. In an action for malicious prosecution the complaint should allege facts showing that the criminal action had terminated. 3. A complaint alleged that defendants wrongfully, maliciously, and without reasonable or probable cause procured a warrant charging plaintiff with having committed the crime of burglary by breaking and entering an office of which, it is alleged, plaintiff was lessee and entitled to possession; that plaintiff was arrested on such warrant by a person unknown to him, who claimed to be a deputy sheriff, aided and assisted by defendants; that said arrest was made in an insolent and insulting manner, on a passenger train, in the presence of passengers with whom plaintiff was acquainted; that plaintiff was taken from the car and marched through the streets to the office of the justice issuing the warrant, and that since said time defendants have not proceeded to try plaintiff on said charge. Held, that such complaint did not state a cause of action for malicious abuse of legal process.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Waupaca, County. The complaint alleges, in effect, that the plaintiff was, November 6, 1890, the lessee of certain rooms in Smith’s block in New London, wherein the New London Times was published, and entitled to the possession thereof; that on that day, at New London, the defendants wrongfully, maliciously, and without reasonable or probable cause procured a warrant charging the plaintiff with having committed the crime of burglary by breaking and entering said office on the day named; that said warrant was served by some person unknown to the plaintiff, who took him into custody under the same, aided and assisted by the defendants ; that said arrest was made in an insolent and insulting manner, on a passenger train, and in the presence of passengers with whom the plaintiff was acquainted; that the plaintiff was taken from said car by an unknown person, claiming to be a deputy sheriff, and the said defendants, and marched through the public streets to the office of the justice issuing said warrant; that since said time the defendants have not proceeded to try the plaintiff on said charge. The defendants demurred to the complaint on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Prom an order refusing to strike out such demurrer as frivolous the plaintiff appeals. To the point that the complaint states a cause of action for abuse of process, counsel for the appellant cited Bedway v. MoAndrew, L. E. 9 Q. B. 74; 22 W. E. 60; 29 L. T. N. S. Q. .B. 421; Munns v. Dupont, 1 Am, L. C 232; Grainger r. Mill, 4 Bing. (N. C.), 212; Meywood v. Oollvnge, 36 Eng. 0. L. 136; Pmigburn v. Bull, 1 Wend. 345; Tu/rner v. Walker, 3 Gill & J. 377; Paige v. Gushing, 38 Me. 523; Chapman v. Woods, 6 Blackf. 504; Sommer v. Will, 4 S. & B. 19; Baldwin v. Weed, 17 Wend. 224-7; Plummer v. JDennett, 6 Me. 421; Lewis v. Morris, 2 Crompt. & Mees. 712-21; Prough v. Ent/rihen, 11 Pa. St. 82.