Case ID: ohio-cc-ns_12/html/0140-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

PROSECUTION FOR. FALSE ARREST.
    Circuit Court of Hamilton County.
    Edward Simper v. Lillie Carroll.
    Decided, June 5, 1909.
    
      False Imprisonment — Action for Damages on Account of — Competency of Evidence as to Nervous Effects Resulting from — Motive of Plaintiff — Defendant Liable for Natural Consequences of Arrest — Newly Discovered Evidence as a Ground for New Trial.
    
    1. Newly discovered evidence, if cumulative only, or such as might have been discovered with reasonable dilligence, is not availablé as a ground for a new trial.
    2. One causing an arrest to be made is liable for the natural and probable consequences of such arrest.
    3. It is competent for a plaintiff in an action for false arrest to testify as to the effect of the arrest upon her mental and nervous condition.
    4. Where the facts upon which an action for false arrest are based are sufficient, the motive prompting the bringing of the action is immaterial.
    
      Jerome D. Creed, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Bates & Meyer, contra.
    The defendant in error, plaintiff below, examined some rings at the jewelry store of Edward Simper with the view of purchase, as- he was led to believe. Before she left the store it was discovered that one of the rings was missing. What was said when this discovery was made led to a demand on the part of the wom'an, as Simper claimed, that she be searched. Simper thereupon called up police headquarters and two detectives responded, who -took the woman to the city, hall, where after satisfying themselves that the ring was not in her possession she was allowed to go without any charge being entered against, her. Thereafter a petition was filed by her against Simper, which contained the following averments:
    “On or about December 12, 1904, defendant caused plaintiff to be arrested, and taken to a police station and searched, and deprived of her liberty for two hours unlawfully and with force on a pretended accusation of larceny, to her damage in the sum of $2,500, for which she asks judgment with costs. ’ ’
    In the court below a verdict was returned for the plaintiff for $500, upon which judgment was entered. To this judgment error was prosecuted.
    Gikeen, P. J.; Swing, J., and Smith, J., concur.
   Newly-discovered evidence to be available on a motion for a new trial must be neither cumulative nor such as might with reasonable diligence have been obtained at the trial. All of the alleged newly-discovered evidence is open to one or both of these objections.

If the defendant caused the arrest of the plaintiff, then what the police said and did in her presence while she was detained in pursuance of such arrest was competent to bind the defendant, especially when it was the natural and probable consequence of the arrest as in this case.

There was no error in permitting plaintiff to testify 'to her mental and nervous condition as the direct result of the arrest. The following question was put to the plaintiff on cross-examination :

“Are you prosecuting this suit to get money or to get your reputation back?”

It is immaterial what the motive of a litigant may be in prosecuting an action provided the facts upon which it is based are sufficient in law. The objection to the question was properly sustained.

The question ruled out on page 38 of the bill of exceptions, is covered substantially by the next question, and hence no prejudice resulted. The two questions at page 124- of the bill were properly ruled out because calling for a conclusion and not a fact. The testimony at pages 131 to 137 was. admissible in rebuttal.

If the defendant unlawfully detained the plaintiff in his store until the police came, whether at his or her request, and whether she was searched at his or her own request, such unlawful detention was the efficient cause and rendered the defendant liable. ITence that part of the charge of the court excepted to by counsel for defendant correctly states the law.

We find no prejudicial error in the record, except that the damages in the -absence of malice are excessive, and a remittitur of $200 will be ordered, and if not consented to the judgment will be reversed.