The Coeur d'Alene press. (Coeur d'Alene, Idaho) 1892-1907, 1904-11-12
IMPORTANT COURT RULING
DEMURRER IN NEAL CASE
JsaEs Beatty Hslas Thas OassEs 81 =
ceaFs Are NSi Liable fer False Arrest
Whsu stAtsts 10 Subsequently DsslaE-
- veia.

In an opinion nlsd, Judge Beatty
u the United States circuit court
eveFruled the demurrer of the defense
10 the amended oOmlpaint In the
ease Of j. NJ. Neal vs. A. s. Erick.
500, 81 al
Neal, who 10 u citizen Of Utah,
was employed a. a travelling solicitor
for the L.oveFin A Browne company,
RGroceEs, OF ChicaRo. His business
was 70 solicit orders for groceries,
uhleh orders WsFe fllsd By the firm
through G. Z. BIFasalI. of Albion,
Cassia county
Ia his complaint Neal claimed that
A. 8. Erickson aud Hector @.
Haight, merchants Of Oakley. John
J. Willard, justice o. the peace for
Oakley precinct, John Adams, con.
stable, aud Andrew LonnabuFy, ahaFif
u Cassie county, urongfniiy caused
bis arrest on or shout April 10,
1908. Neal vas brought before
Justice Willard on April IS. 1903.
and tiBsd $50 aud costa for failure 20
comply With section 1851 Of tho 70.
Vlssd statutes whleh provides for this
iieoasIag u hAwksFs. peddlaFs and
solieitaEn.
This section Of the sistasts vas
subsequently, held TO be Ia conflict
With the constitution uf the Unitsd
States lscction ,, article I. aud
section >, article H.. Neal was con
na@d 10 the Casaia county jail for
i've days and was obliged 70 pay elo0
10 oas4a and fees 10 secure hls "a.
lnano.
Neal bEOasbt suit against tbs de.
PENDANTS IN The United States eircnit
court for $4,000 damAgea- Tho de.
Pendants dsmuFred 10 bis complaint
and the demurrer uaa sustained
Neal then flIed al amended com
pialnt to uhIch the dsfandantss aIno
! demuTred and tbs present ruling Of
badge Beatty 10 upon this demurrer
which tba court ovcFFulss.
One u the principal conisntions
in Neai's amended complaint uas
that the defendants did the ~ronR
eomplaiasd Of under The shelter Of .
statistic ahich. Il L. alleged. they knew
was void. In bis ruling. Judge
Beatty states Counsel Ia their
hFisfs upon this demurrer have raised
= question not referred 10 under the
demurrer TO the original complsint;
u ls skathoF thoss who prosecute IN
good faith under = criminal statute
can b. held liable 10 = civil action
for false imprisonment when such
statute ia subsequently held void
Without any examination 81 auth
critics. have no hesitation In hold
ius that no party a. prosecuting can
- held liahls aud THE uotWtthn'ard
ins the rulings 60 the contrary The
decided weight % authority IL that
the Judges Of tho higher courts are
NeHomrt from liability for any mir
taken enforcement in good faith ~
statute which proves Ia be in fact
void To bold that tho officers Of
the lover courts. which arr lsss learn
81 Ia the Law. should bo liable for
such mistakes seems monatrous
Judge Beatty quotes authorities on
the subject aud concludes his opinion
A. follows
u That this action cannot b.
maintained aaRinat either defendant
Who acted IN good faith under a
statute then in force, although sub
sequeutly held void
- That II defendants Eilckson
and Haisht. through bad faith aud
corrupt motives, uniustly procured
The arrest Of the plaintiff, they are
eivilly liable
-. That any Of the Judicial
officers who acted without iurisdic.
tion. or under circumstances from
which they knew they were without
Jurisdiction, are liable.
Subject 10 such legal conclusions
the demurrer Ia overruled. y