Case ID: ny-st-rep_38/html/0734-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pratt, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Henry C. Henderson, Resp’t, v. William McReynolds, App’lt.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
    
    
      Filed May 11, 1891.)
    
    False imprisonment—Damages.
    In an action for false imprisonment the evidence showed that plaintiff was arrested and detained only long enough to walk across the street. The court charged that at most it was only a technical arrest, and that the measure of damages was entirely in the discretion of the jury. A verdict of six cents was set aside as inadequate. Held, error.
    Appeal from order setting aside verdict and granting a new trial.
    Action for false imprisonment. Plaintiff testified that the defendant asked a police officer to arrest him for assault, which the officer refused to do without a warrant, but did so on a charge of having locked defendant in a room, and took him across the street, where he met another officer and on his advice discharged the plaintiff. Defendant and the officer testified that defendant requested the officer to arrest the plaintiff for an assault; that the officer after enquiring into the matter refused to arrest without a warrant, and that the whole occurrence took only three minutes.
    
      Jacob S. Van Wyck, for app’lt; Lewis J. Grant, for resp’t.
   Pratt, J.

This was an action of false imprisonment tried before a jury who assessed the damages at six cents, which verdict was set aside as inadequate.

The judge charged the jury that, at most, the detention was only a technical arrest and that the measure of damages was entirely within their 'discretion.

This was right as the evidence showed that plaintiff was arrested and detained only long enough to walk across the street and the verdict was consistent with the charge.

There was no basis for any specific sum' as damages, and the jury having estimated the same as nominal it was not proper for the court to interfere.

Indeed it is not clear that a verdict for the defendant would not . have been justified.

We think it is clear that the case is one where a verdict cannot be properly interfered with.

Order reversed, with costs.

Babptabd, P. J., concurs; Dykhah, J., not sitting.