The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1892-03-16

OPINION OF THE COURT BY DOLE, ]. |
This is an action of trespass for |
false imprisonment, and was tried
at the last July term of this Court,
Mr.. Justice Bickerton presiding.
The defendant is a corporation
owning steam vessels and carrying
on a coasting business among the
Hawaiian Islands. On the morning
of the 18th day of October, A. D.
1890, just after midnight, while the
Claudine, one of the steamers of the
defendant, was lying at the port of
Lthaina with steam up, there Was
an alteration between the plaintiff
and Captain LorenZen, Master of the
Claudine, which was terminated by
the arrest of the plaintiff and his re-
moval from the vessel by two police
officers by virtue of the following
order:
"Wllder Steamship Company, La
haina, October 18th, 1890. Deputy
Sheriff of Lahaina. / request you to
"arrest and take out of my steamer
tClaudine,' Mr.. Duncan, Chief
"Engineer, for mutinous conduct
sand obstructing me in the naviga-
"tion of said steamer.
(Sig.) "T. G. Lorenzen, Master
S. S. 'Claudine.'"
The plaintiff was taken ashore
by. the police officers and kept in
custody several days and finally
taken to Honolulu where he was set
at liberty by the Marshal.
The plaintiff claimed $1,000, dam
ages and the jury returned verdict
for $1,000. The defendant excepted
to the verdict as contrary to the law
and the evidence, and also to the
instruction requested by the plain
tiff, that elf the Captain, the servant
"of the defendant, ordered the
"Sheriff to arrest the plaintiff and
che did 80 arrest him and restrain
"him of his liberty without War
Grant, while plaintiff was not doing
''any unlawful act, the verdict must
"be for plaintiff" The defendant
also excepted to the refusal of the
Court to give the following instruc-
tons
/. cit was therefore within the
ssscope of the Masters authority to
"restrain plaintiff on board or to
"remove him from the ship, but
"if the master ordered him into
fscustody or imprisonment on shore
Sin a manner not authorized by law,
l. ~v-~---1- tI.O-Sv0fse 81
sshis authority as such master, and
s'his employers the defendant COM
stpany are not responsible for such
unauthorized act nor liable in dam
cages therefor"
2. "There having been no ex-
cypress authority from the company
"to the master to order plaintiff into
imprisonment on shore, his implied
ssauthority does not reach to that
t'act. There is an implied authority
''to do all those things that are ne
'scessary for the protection of pro-
"perty instructed to person or for
ssful1lling duty which he has to
''perform, but nothing more or
tffurther."
3. "From the time of plaintiff
carnival on shore, his detention and
s'treatment were beyond the scope
"of the Masters authority and duty
s'to control, and such detention and
H'treatment Of plaintiff on shore, the
defendant company are not res.
s'ponsible or liable in damages"
4. "If the jury shall find the
tsplaintiff entitled to verdict and
ssto damages, the amount of such
''damages must be confined to the
'doss or damages actually incurred
ssor suffered by plaintiff as direct
sand immediate result of his having
sheen placed on shore at Lahaina By
"the Muster of the ship"
5. "Plaintiff's imprisonment while
son shore or thereafter nor any,
'sthing in his treatment by the police
CATER his arrival on shore should
"not he considered in reaching sucl
OBSTINATE"
On tue question of the liability o
the defendant for the acts of it
servant, the Master of the sClaudine,
it is a we'll established principle o
law that an employer is liable fo
the conduct of his servant whethe
it is lawful or not, if it is within tn,
scope of the authority conferred
upon him either expressly or by fai
implication. There is some conflic
IN the precedents as to the appli
cation of this principle, but the pre-
vailing rule appears to be this, al
set forth in Woods Master anC
Servant, 594:
"In all cases the act must hay,
s'been done while engaged in tn,
ssprosecution of some business TO
'fthe master, and that business mus
ffhave been such as the servant haC
''authority from the master to do
"That is, he must have been author
"ized either expressly or implicitly
'fto do the act in some name
(which be has improperly or wrong
"fully performed, and the fact tina
"he was only authorized to do th
''act in a certain way, Chat is CO.
"rectly) cpes not save the maste
F'from liability. If he was author