Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1889-03-11
FALSE ARRESTS
Bear Fruit in a Suit Bringing
an Alderman to Book.
SQUIRE CASSIDY THE MAN,
And His Arrest is to be Ordered
Upon Judge Stoves Ruling.
BUNKO YIELDS A STARTLING ECHO
And DR.. Penney, Having COrnered Detec-
tives, Goes in for Justice.
SQUIRE CASSIDY THE MAN,
BUNKO YIELDS A STARTLING ECHO
NO LIMITATION TO BAR HIS BOYS SUIT

Alderman Cassidy, of the First ward.
will be arrested to-day on charge of false
arrest and imprisonment. The papers have
been drawn up and will be filed this morn
ing, when he will be asked to pay $40, 900
or stand a trial. During the recent trial of
William Murdoch (of bunko fame), De-
tectiyes Perkins, Todd and Anderson, on a
suit for damages entered by DR.. W. L.
Penney, Judge Stowe made use of strong
and well-weighed language on the bench,
and, if it is correct, his view of the case
NAV place number of Aldermen in bad
box. 1t was Squire Cassidy, though, to
whom he specially referred.
Several very important points were
brought out bearing upon the opinion, or
decision, and they were promptly utilized
by DR.. Penney's attorney, W. NJ. Price,
ESQ. The suit, which is to be brought to-
day, bids fair to be one of the most interest
ing ever tried in the courts of Allegheny
county, because the responsibility of mag
istrate who issues a warrant was never be-
fore brought up here upon just such points.
Attorney Price, who has drawn up the
papers, was seen by DISPATCH reporter
yesterday, and in talking of the case, said:
Judge Stowe rendered a decision during
the trial in Common Pleas Court No. 1 last
week, in the suit of DR.. Penney against
Murdoch, Perkins and others, to the effect
that the warrants upon which the Penneys
were arrested were null and void, and were
illegal.
A STRONG STATEMENT.
s'There was no legal foundation for the
arrests and every one that knowingly han
died the spurious warrants was guilty of
false arrest. When that suit was brought
Squire Cassidy was not embraced in it, be-
cause we were not aware of the fact that he
was legally responsible until Judge Stowe
gave his decision on the case.
"When Squire Cassidy was placed on
the stand he swore that Mr.. Murdoch had
made information against 'Colville and
others, and that atterward he had inserted
the names of Barnett and the two Penneys.
He issued the warrants for the arrest of the
men on this information.
eff the affidavit to the charge had been
made regularly we could not do anything
on account of Limitation. A suit cannot be
brought against an Alderman for an illegal
act after the expiration of six months.
As their was no formal information, the
warrants issued for the two Penneys were
illegal. They were issued by color and not
by virtue Of Office, and, therefore, the limi-
tation does not apply. We can now pro-
ceed against Cassidy on the same ground
that we did against Perkins. A capias will
be placed in the hands of the Sheriff to-
morrow and Cassidy will be arrested. We
would have brought the suit before, but did
not know that the information was illegal
until the recent trial.
A CLINCHER, IF NECESSARY.
''There is another and more important
point that will be brought up, if Cassidy
escapes this suit by reason of limitation.
The statutes provide that limitation does
not begin to run against right of action
until the disability under which the party
entitled to bring the suit is removed. DR..
Penney's son, who is still under age, was
also arrested and imprisoned. If the suit
brought by DR.. Penney against Squire
Cassidy is ruled out by reason of limita-
tion, his son still has case, because he will
not be of age for several months The papers
in this latter case have also been drawn
up, but will not be presented until young
Penney attains his majority. I think we
have good case, and if the Squire is con-
victed it will be lesson to all other magis-
trates who fill out informations and issue
warrants that are not sworn to.
This is the case, it will be borne in mind,
in which somebody distracted the original
affidavit, warrants, etc.. from the custody of
the Clerk of Courts long after the documents
had been in evidence in the Penney and
Barnett cases in Criminal Court, though no.
body but interested parties were supposed
to have access to the papers, and they could
be properly removed only upon the writing
of en- authorized receipt.