The Portland daily press., 1899-01-13
CUMBERLAND COUNTY.

Jonathan p. Palmer VS.. Maine central
Railroad Company.
Rescript by Savage, j If a private In
dividual procure the arrest OF AN Innocent
person for a misde;neanor. by an onloer
without a warrant he cannot justify by
showing that he acted in good faith,
with ont malice, and upon beiief,
founded upon reasonable grounds
The defendants conductor caused the
plaintiff to be arrested by constable,
without warrant for frauduiently evad-
ing the payment of his fare. The ofiense
charged Is Inisdemeanor only, and the
plaintiff was, In fact, not guilty. Held
that the defendant cannot justify the ar
rest on the ground that the plaintiff
conduct afforded the conductor reasonable
grounds TO believe. and he did believe.
that the plaintiff was guilty. Held also
that the constsb bic had no lawful authori =
ty to arrest the plaintiff without warrant,
on Information merely. the plaintiff not
being "found violating any law OF the
state"
The plaintiff. after being arrested, was
taken Immediately before municipal
court, where the conductor made com
plaint under oath against him for fraudu-
lsntly evading the pay OF his rare. -.
The plaintiff then pleaded mot guilty.
! He ehen paid his fare and the costs OF
prosecution to the judge. The conductor,
In writing, acknowledged complete
satisfaction" and the plaintiff was there
upon discharged. Held that by these pro-
oseoings, the plaintiff did not waive or
release his claim against the defendant
for the unlawful arrest, and the plaintiff
was not thereby barred of his remedy.
When a plaintiff claims punitive dam
ages, or damages for his injured feelings,
the spirit and conduct Of the defendant
may be inquired into, TO enhanoe or az
gravate AMI as we'll, the plaintiffs own
conduct. and the provocation by him. IL
any, to m itigate the damages.
The plaintiff was travelling upon a
non transferable mileage book OF his own.
Three times be was asked by the CON
ductor, as a means of identification, II tne
name on the book was his name and each
time the plaintiff refused to give the IN.
formation desired. The uncontradicted
testimony OF bystanders Is to the effect
that he told the conductor that IL was
"pone of his business. The inquiry OF
the conductor was reasonable one, anu
frank and truthful answer such as IL
was the duty OF the plaintin 10 MAKE,
would have prevented all that trouble.
His conduct was wilful, obstinate,
eynsiye. and was we'll calculated to give
the conductor reason to believe that he
was attempting to ride upon ticket, not
his own. These circumstances do not
iustify the arrest, but they are entitled to
full consideration ON the question OF
damages. The damages to the p'ainiin In
his person, and for loss OF time and ex-
peuses were little more than nominal.
The verdict was $3.50 Under all the cir.
cumstances, the court is of the opinion
that new trial should he awarded unless
the plaintiff will remit all Of tha verdict
In excess of ten dollars.
Exec, ons overruled. If the plaintiff
files a remittitur of all of the verdict in
excess of ten dollars, within thirty days
after the resoript Is received, motion Tor
new trial overruied; otherwise. motion
sustained.