The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1888-02-03

laws. Policemen may arrest temporarily
and carry before the magistrate, rs
others may, and owing to the necessity
| for it they may proceed without war.
| rant under circumstances which would
not justify others in doing so.
Temporary arrest, without warrant pre-
viously obtained, is an extraordinary pro-
cedure, which the facts must justify in
any one attempting it. Policemen justify |
it by the circumstances surrounding their
employment and the necessity for imme-
| diate action. But when the circumstances |
are such, as in this case, that no such ne |
cessity exists for immediate action, the ar |
rest without previous warrant cannot be |
made by q policeman any more than by |
others. Here was a supposed fugitive from
another State pursued into Illinois. lie
was to be arrested for a crime long since
committed in that other State. He had
been "locatcd," according to the detec-
tive's testimony. The State OF Illinois
prescribed special procedure for that
kind OF arrest, and none was lawful with
out it. The common Flaw OF the land
prescribes a general and ordinary method
in all cases, and that was not pursued.
There was no necessity for temporary
arrest without warrant. A trap was laid
to arrest a man who could have been ar
rested upon warrant without difficulty
All the facts and circumstances necessary
for a previously procured warrant were
known, and detention for inquiry was un-
necessary, once the arrest OF this particu-
lar man had been determined upon. 1t is
true that, being arrested without war
rant, subsequent legal procedure, by car
rying him before a magistrate, would have
saved this outrage by developing the TACT
that the wrong man was arrested, and
would likewise have saved this law
suit But Anthony, with characteristic
seli-assurance and reckless self.reliance,
assumed the function Of determin-
ing that fact for himself. He did not
i'm his conccit, doubt but that he had the
right man, and he had no need OF magis-
terial inquiry, and having his helpless and
/ friendless prisoner in his power what did
he care for, or what did he know, for that
, matter, Of his prisoners legal right TO be
| carried before q magistrate? So far rs this
proof shows-nothing. Having him in his
: power he proceeded to procure his consent
TO GO along peaceably, at his will.
e II is not the case Of a lawful procedure
I 10 arrest one man and by an unfortunate
r mistake arresting another, nor OF the tenn
: porary arrest OF a suspected offender by
4 policeman desiring 10 make further in.
s quiry. Not at all. ! was an unlawful
5 procedure against aiv men and against
: the rights OF free men, as we know
i them under our law. The inestima-
a Bile value OF legal procedure is illus
: tmted by the facts Of this case. Inn
g perfect protection IL may often be, as all
n human institutions are defective, but here
l. il would have saved this man from arrest
= and have been n complete protection To
d him. Departure from IL caused this wrong
l. AS II always wrongs some one. IL Is moi
Il because a mistake was made in the prog
G. rcss of LEGAL proceedings but because th,
2. proceedings were wholly illegal that they
Is deserve our severe condemnation.
At Now, gentlemen OF the jury, Is the de
G, PENDANT responsible for this trespass upon
st the right Of freeman TO be always free
p not only from wrongful arrest, but iron
as wrongful accusation and wrongful punish
c. mcnt Of the kind inflicted on this plain
rs tiT without due process oil law
~ use this language In the sense that be
n longs to Il by the traditions OF our rac'
" and that has been stamped upon II b!
)d our law, For Il is my opinion that II
ut the exaggerated attention we pay to mcr'
n political irccdom-the mere right TO con
ly duct the govcrnmcnt-we are losing III
IL sense Of regard for personal immunit
N, from interference by arbitrary power, sue
C. as has been exercised against the painful
and. II not in this repulsive form, In leg
a. degree often used against Others who sui
TO nit without more than u temporary pr
Jrt test.
lc- That the defendant IL responsible TO Oh
is plaintiff In the facts OF this case there ca
nut he no doubt. We all know that the III
nv PENDANT did not, and none al MS belcN
10 that It's officials would. under any circnn
lat stances authorize or sanction proceedin
nd like that which was taken against u
an plaintiff. Nevertheless, Il employe
on Anthony rs lis agent and u rcsponsib
err for his incompctency and negligen'
oof in the limo Of that duty he WI
ar sent 10 perform in this ease. ~
the defendant has proved much, very nue.
ul- that should 90 in mitigation OF damage
he but not one thing by way OF knt~ianu
the defense. The prciensc that anthony "
10 not iis agent scarcely deserves any motto
rht lint n he were not Thiel 4 Co. were
mt. AGENTS and Anthony theirs, and ben
gal theirs was that of the defendant lik
{ a wise. Moreover, Anthony was IN It's
ong Pncrt employment in the sense that
lmi Vas detailed 10 do lis work and sc
ion IA do this. as part OF II. The order Tor
Of sisting from the pursuit OF McCail W
be- given TO avoid paying reward and "
rar- not absolute, In the end Of the cor
les, spondcncc. but II II were, the deicnda
nm- WAS still liable for sending an agent W
lcrc negllvently disobcyed It's orders and p
Il a cccled. notwithstanding, the rcyocati
lacs of Instructions TO execute inc
irry ncqligently. Tho release was ab
gis- luicly void, and under the circumstan'
pur. rather an aggrayation Of the damag
the than otherwise. Tho outrage Of TAXI
Sary Il from the plaintiff was but little !
ten. than the original wrong In >enormi
iout There was no adequate consolidation
4 20 \ n The reliance upon the technical :
pro- nominal consideration Of one dol
the was of a piece with the other prctcn
can of reliance on policeman ~ the wro
oner docr. ON Thicl K Go. rs the princi
iiry. employer. the "fricndlnc-' OF the TN
q Tor action and consent Of the plaintiff .
thod Qualification. Tho doing out Of dollai
the two 20 pay for scant food aud lodging
been tickets 10 other places was no considera'
and for the release that was adequate, TN
asicr the circumstances, aud all show The III
rate, Of rs procurement by dunes.
wing | do not leavr these questions 70
D the because no verdict would bc rendered
Irrcst Won upon them by the defendant and
rwi-e lcse Intelligent Jury should find such q
AIKEN dict. In the facts Of this case, " would
was sct aside by the court as unsuPpoor
Innot wholly, by any proof. Therefore, di
, suit verdict for the plaintiff, on