The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-02-14
A DAMAGE SUIT.
uuncmENr FOR $50 AGAINST THE
LOTTERY COMPANY.

In the case of Plassen against the Louisiana
Lottery. Judge Houston decided in favor OF
plaintiff for $3.50. as follows:
On the thirteenth OF May. 1873 plaintiff was
arrested In this city on q charge OF selling unil.
eensed lottery tickets In violation OF act NO. q
lottery tickets In the city OF New Orleans. He
was tried before the Recorder Of the First Re
The AFFIDAVIT under which plaintiff was arrest.
ed was made by Casper J. Schneider, who held
a commission from the Mayor Of the city as a;
Company the defendant corporation. Schrei-
Der was paid salary by the company and by the
company alone. He had received general In
strnetions from the company TO cause the ar
rest of all persons selling lottery tickets other
than those of the defendant corporation.
and for that to make the S a1
Plaintiff now brings this action against the
defendant corporation and Chas. I. Howard.
manager, and M. A. Dauphin. president, In
soIido, for the sum Of si0.eso as damages for
false and malicious arrest and Imprisonment.
Plaintiff was;arrested and taken to the office OF
cd. His detention did not exceed one-h half OF
an hour and he was subsequently discharged
after trial. Schneider was In the habit OF re-
porting to the Office OF the company the arrests
made and the disposition of the cases. He
made no report In the case OF pteintif. however,
till after the discharge OF plaintiff and there 10
no evidence to show that any OF the defendants
specially directed the arrest Of plaintiff, ratified
Ii, or knew anything about it till some time sub
Plaintiff testifeS that he never sold an Havana
lottery ticket. the offense with which he was
charged during his life. His partner testfles
lottery ticket sold on their premises-the place
where the tick et was alleged In the affidavit to
have been sold. several gentlemen,Nell known
munity, testified to the good reputation of
plaintiff. and that they have never known him
to e t ese Of any lind ana int s
they would have known the fact from thetr In
timaey with him and business connections with
Schreiber's affidavit against plaintiff was
based on information obtained from III. II,
Frsbie. who was not put on the witness stand
witnesses. however. were placed on the stand
by defendants to show that they ut another
time had bought an Havana lottery ticket from
plaintiff. One of the witnesses said that Ii he
(the pantiffl was the man that kept the estab
lishment at No I25 Common street. then be 1.-THE
plaintiff) was the man from whom the witness
had purchased O fractional part OF an Havana
lottery ticket. which he had subsequently
thrown away after the drawing. The other
witness for defendant said that he accompanied
the first Witness to No. 125 Common street; that
he did not go into the store. but waited at the
door while the first witness went into the store
to buy the ticket: that he did not see from
he ttbe first witness) came out of the store with
piece or FRACTIONAL part OF az n.h Ha a,sd
who made the affidavit, says that he had
heard. how he does not state that Havana lot
terry tickets were sold at 1875 Common street:
deavor to buy fraction Of such ticket In order
to cause the arrest OF plaintiff. Plassan. II he
sold Frfsble an Havana lottery ticket or frac-
ton of one; that Frisbie returned to him,
Schneider. with the fractional part OF an Havana
lottery ticket, stating that he purchased such
ticket from Piaesan, the plaintiff; that there
upon be. Schneider. caused the arrest OF the
Schreiber's method of enforcing the law by
procuring infractfons of 1t was reprehensibie
ar n n n
risks: but the evidence tends strongly to show
that Frisbie did not tell him the truth. Frisbie
did not take the stand as witness berein, al
though the strongest attacks were made on the
truth of the statement he communicated to
Schneider. and which caused the affidavit for
the arrest of plaintiff.
arrest Of plaintiff. There was malice on the
part OF Schneider as shown by his effort to
tempt the plaintiff, through Frtsbie, to violate
the law. in order to subsequently cause the ar
rest of plaintiff.
The defendant corporation paid Schneider his
salary. gave him general Instructions to cause
reaped and are responsible In law for the dam
ages to innocent persons arising from his want
OF judgment and good faith within the scope OF
the duties which they had imposed on him. 81
There is no evidence In the record to show
that the defendant corporation is wealthy
case like the one at bar to prevent the defend
ant corporation, through it's agents. from pur-
suing the same course towards others as that by
which the plaintiff has been injured.
Letthere be judgment In favor of the plaintiff
and against the defendant. the Louisiana Lot
terry Company. for the sum of $3.50 tseyen hun
be judgment In favor of defendants. c. T. How
ard and M. A. Dauphin. and against plaintiff.
with costs,
Mr. E. W. Huntington was Of counsel for
plaintiff. and Thomas J. Semmes. ESQ. for de-
PENDANT