The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-06-10
IN POLICE INTERFERENCE.
THEIR PRESENCE AND WORDS IN
HAGAN'S STORE UNLAWFUL.
No Arrests We're Made or Attempted THE
Were Not Administering and Enforce
Ing the Criminal Law In This Case. Says
the Appellate Division Unanimously.

HI appreciate
The Appellate rivision in Brooklyn has
handed down q decision unanimously re-
versing the order of the lower court in re-
fusing an Injunction to Thomas A. Hagan In
his suit against Police Captains Byrne and
O'Connor Of Manhattan.
Hagan Is a dealer in notions In this
borough. His store is over a saloon. The
police, on the ground that they suspected
Hagan Of running a poolroom, day after
dav, for five weeks before Hagan began the
suit, entered his store against his protest,
searched it and often SAID In the hearing OF
his customers that his store was SUSPECTED
of being a poolroom. This occurred in the
administratio of Commissioner McAdoo,
who was made co-defendant in the case with
the police captains. Justice, Wiiham y.
Gaynor, who wrote the opinion, says IN
part:
The policemen make AFFIDAVIT that they
visited and inspected the plaintiffs place.
They do not deny the continuous entrances,
or any OF the specific things alleged. but only
In general terms that they did anything to
nterfere with the plaintiffs business. which
is nothing but their conclusion. They make
no claim that they saw anything illegal in
the plaintiffs plsce or that they have any
evidence Of any wrongdoing there.
II private persons were committing these
trespasses an injunction would be issued
az matter Of course during the tendency OF
the action TO stop them. instead OF leaving
the plaintiff to be- ruined by them before the
action could be tried. There lie a distinct
head Of equity for the protection OF persons
against continuous trespasses, Does 1t make
a difference that the unlawful trespassers
are police officials? May they ~unlawfully
destroy q mans house or property while
courts Of equity look on and say they have
no jurisdiction or power to stop them?
The trite rule that a court OF equity Will
not interpose to prevent arrests or the ad-
ministration Of the criminal law is. as 1t has
always been, undisputed by bench or bar.
But II has no application to a case like this.
No arrests were made or attempted, nor were
tho defendants engaged in any way In the
administration or enforcement OF the criminal
law. The ways. methods and procedure for
the administration and enforcement Of the
criminal law are carefully prescribed and
limited by law, and when the police 60 out
aide OF thcm and violate the rights of prop
rty, pers on or house OF the individual they
are not engaged In administering and en-
forcing the criminal law. but are common
trespassers and lawbreakers. II the civil
courts will not prevent such trespasses the
the police are let loose on the community to
commit extortion right and left, O condition
only too well known among us In the recent
past, as attested by the public records of the
State.
The suggestion pressed upon us that a
plaintiff who comes into a court OF equity to
seek to save his property and business from
destruction by continuous criminsl treepass
may be dismissed thence on the ground that a
riminal prosecution or conviction Of the tres
passers will give him adequate redress for the
loss of his property. and the destruction of his
business meanwhile has no foundation in
principle or In any actual decision. Only the
State, the community at large. gets redress by
a criminal prosecution. That a thief or tres
passer may be arrest ed or convicted does not
restore the property he has stolen or de-
stroyed.