The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1888-04-01

atively very smally sums awarded for
damages in suits like this. II is not
court in which to make much money by
speculative damage suits for personal in
juries.
''rhe libelant will be allowed 500 dam.
ages and his costs OF suit"
J. Noricct Harris vs. L.. n. O. &TR.R.
Judge Hammond yesterday overulcd
the motion for q new trial III the case OF ].
Norhcet Harris VS.. j., n. o. * 4. Railroad
company, in which there was a verdict of
5000 damages for the wrongful arrest of
Harris by Thcil's Detective agency, OF ST.
Louis. The opinion sustains the change
already published, which denies tho right
OF arrest without warrant, except in cases
where tine emergency is such that tenn
porary arrest for further inquiry is toler-
ated. Tho following extract from the
opinion may be useful to detectives:
"The fundamental error was in assum-
ing that an arrest without warrant is
made lawful by merely having police
man make the arrest and then negotiat-
ing for "a consent" which should relieve
the service Of the trouble OF procuring
extradition papers. 1.-THE necessity which
relaxes the law against arbitrary arrests in
favor OF policemen proceeding to tenn
porarily detain suspected persons can be
thus extended, then, indeed, is the police
man greater than the King. The mere
presence and cooperation OF policeman
does not make "a police arrest valid, but
the circumstances and particularly the
exigencies OF the case must he such rs to
justify the policeman in proceeding with
out warrant However useful detective
agencies may be they proceed at their
peril, and at the peril Of their employers
when they undertake arbitrary arrests,
such as this is shown TO have been"
On the subject OF the release the court
reviewed the proof in detail and held that
the duress was clearly established since
the prisoner had not been set free by his
captors, but was kept substantially under
their influence until they could induce
him 10 sign paper relieving them from
damages for the wrong done him. lie
was not consulted about the terms OF the
release. There wasno antccedcnt negotia-
ton with free man, but only the pre-
sentation OF a paper prepared without con-
sulting him, 10 bc signed, while he was a
prisoner in their bands 10 all intents and
purposes.
The court thought the verdict rather
large, but As the jury had the right to
measure the damages and the parties n
constitutional right TO their judgment on
that question, the court could not interfere
unless the excess was shocking TO every
man, which this was not.
Pat Colligan vs. Kansas City Springfield & Mem
phs Railroad.
This was n suit for damages for occupy
ing the street with the railroad, and ioi
excessively using the street for railroad
purposes, in which there was a verdict foI
plaintiff for S20l.
Judge Hammond granted a new trial in
this case because the charge seemed TO be
confusing and likely to mislcad the jury
in apportioning the damages between the
different counts Of the declaration. Tho
verdict was Tor 81 only for damages u
access and 500 for damages 10y excessive
uses. II this had been reversed the court
would probably not have interiered with
the verdict, no matter what It's owl
opinion may have been, rs courts leay,
the amount OF damages almost exclusively
10 the jury. But the peculiarly of Oh,
verdict raised suspicion that the charg,
Of the court was not lucid in explaining
the measure OF damages, and for fear o
this the court thought best 10 give a new
| trial