The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1892-12-02


Held: That the Marshal is only liable for
the acts of his deputies.
OPINION OF THE COURT PER BECKER
TON, ].
This is an action for an alleged
false imprisonment, involving wrong
ful arrest The case was heard before
the Chief Justice and a mixed jury
at the October term (189D of the
Court. The jury rendered a I'M
animous verdict for the plaintiff,
and assessed damages at 1915. De-
PENDANTS counsel noted exceptions to
the verdict as being contrary to law
and the evidence and gave notice of
a motion for a new trial, and there
after filed his written motion on the
grounds, Q) that said verdict was
contrary to law and the weight of
evidence, and (2) that there was mis-
conduct on the part of the jury in
arriving at their verdict. On Deem
Der 18th, 1891, the motion was argued
before Chief Justice Judd who or
dered the verdict to be set aside and
a new trial granted, on the ground
that there was no evidence to support
the verdict. At this hearing, the
second ground, that of misconduct of
the jury, was abandoned by the de-
PENDANT, and the plaintiff, by her
attorney. excepted to said order and
ruling. The matter is now here on
the plaintiffs bill of exceptions.
The plaintiff claims that she was
arrested by police officer acting
under order of the defendant on the
wharf of the Inter-Island Steamship
Company, in Honolulu, on May 9th,
1891, when about to embark for her
home on Kauai, and was taken to the
Police Station at about 5 o'clock in
the afternoon, and there detained
until about 9 o'clock P. NJ.
The question is, Was there an ar
rest and detention by order of de-
PENDANT, the Marshal? IL an arrest
was made without the order or direc-
ton of the defendant, he cannot be
held liable for the same. The Mar
shall is not liable for the acts of
police officers, he is only liable for
the acts of his deputies. laws of
1888, Chapter s, Sections s and IL
The evidence of what orders
or instructions defendant gave
Officer Crabbe is that of the
officer himself, the defendant,
and his deputy. MIR. Mehrtens.
The evidence of Crabbe cannot
be relied on, it is very contradictory
and uncertain; then, after the evil
dence of G. w. Ashford as to his
conversation with Crabbe, how can il
be given any weight? Such evidence
would certainly not be sufficient in
itself on which to base a finding OF
fact by jury. The evidence of the de
PENDANT and Mehrtens is positive anc
certain Ia. .his regard. 1t is, that mar
named Enders came to defendant and
complained that native man was
going to take his, Enders'. child of
to Kauai; that defendant then asked
if he, Enders, was the father of the
child, to which Enders replied be
was; that defendant said, off yor
are the father Of the child, why dc
you not go and get it back?" Ender:
said he was afraid Of the native, thai
he might do him some bodily harm
Thereupon defendant instructed
Crabbe to go with Enders and SEE
that there was no disturbance, but ne
orders were given to arrest any one
and that nothing was said about 6
woman. The defendant also says
81 might have given Crabbe instruc
tons to bring them up to the station
house in case they could not settle
the matter down there; this custom
is quite general; had no idea an.
force would be used" This evi
dence is uncontradicted. The onl,
occasion on which defendant was il
any way concerned in this matter be
fore the arrest was when Ender
came to him and asked for the as
sistance of a police officer. HOY
could defendant then have ordereC
the arrest of the plaintiff Ia woman
when as far as defendant was in
formed, there was no one but til
native man and child in the matter
1t may be true that Crabbe did say
as the plaintiff says he did, that b
arrested plaintiff by order of the MAJ
shall. This does not by any mean
prove that defendant did order th
arrest; it is necessary to show til
authorizing words of the princips