Case ID: ad_160/html/0924-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Laughdik, J. (dissenting):", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Frederick R. Caspers, Respondent, v. James Ryan and Others, Appellants.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Corot, entered in the New York county clerk’s office on the 26th day of April, 1913, on a verdict and from an order entered on the 1st day of May, 1913, denying a motion for a new trial.
    Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
   No opinion. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.; Laughlin, J., dissented.

Laughdik, J. (dissenting):

I dissent from the affirmance on the ground that the court ruled as matter of law that the acquittal of the plaintiff by the magistrate was conclusive that he was not guilty of the crime; and an exception to that charge was duly taken by the defendants. The alleged misdemeanor was committed in the presence of the defendant Ryan, who arrested the plaintiff, and I am of opinion that an acquittal is neither binding on the defendant in an action for malicious prosecution, nor in an action for false arrest (Schultz v. Greenwood Cemetery, 190 N. Y. 276; Burt v. Smith, 181 id. 1; Danzer v. Nathan, 145 App. Div. 455; Barber v. Gould, 20 Hun, 446; Turner v. Dinnegar, Id. 465; George v. Johnson, 25 App. Div. 125; Loughman v. Long Island R. R. Co., 83 id. 629. See, also, Rown v. Christopher & Tenth St. R. R. Co., 34 Hun, 471; Platt v. Bonsall, 136 App. Div. 397); and in the case at bar the evidence, if believed by the jury, would have warranted them in finding that the plaintiff was guilty, notwithstanding his acquittal by the magistrate.