New Britain herald., 1923-01-17
DEFENDANT POLICE
 AWARDED VERDICT
tcon,iaued From First Page,

nor any part thereof upon the eeea- sion set forth in the plaintiffs conn plaiht.
 "Plaintiff's counsel during the. trial expressly waived any claim to dam ages for the alleged taking by the defendants al the same time Of a quantity of cigars and cigarettes,
 ''fhis leaves for determination the question as to whether or not the talk ing by the defendants Of the plain tiff's oyercoat on November 2ist, iasi, and the retaining of it by them until January Sd. 1898. when it appears by the uneontroverted evidence 1t was returned, entitled the plaintiff to dam ages under the pleadings and evidence here, and if so. to what amount,
 Upon this occasion. the defendants, as police officers of the City of New Britain, in pursuance of orders re- eeived from their superior officer, proceeded to the house occupied by the plaintiff and his family. for the purpose of investigation. and upon the facts there ascertained confirming their earlier information they arrest ed. without a warrant. as was their right. Section a23 Pubuie Acts 1918; Section l04. Page 96s Special Laws of is06). the plaintiffs son. Frank. after he had admitted that he had com mitted the vicious assault upon an- other a short time before. in pur- suance Of the complaint of which the officers made their visit. After Frank had so been lawfully placed under ar- rest, the defendants. in the lawful and proper pursuance of their duty. (L. R. A. 1916 C.. 1017: Smith vs. Jerome. e3 New York Supp. 202; II. IS. vs. Wilson, 163 Fed. 33S), at Franks express invitation. proceeded to search for the dangerous weapon. to wit: the brass knuckles. which they had been credibly informed and honestly believed had been used in committing the assault in question.
 While so engaged. the defendants discovered the overcoat which I find (5 Corpus Juris, page 435, Sec. 7D they took in good faith, reasonably and justifiably believing it to have been stolen by Frank, and to have been then the subject of a crime in process of perpetration by the plain- tiff and his wife and their son Frank to wit: that of receiving and conceal ing stolen goods knowing them to be stolen.
 'As soon as reasonable opportun- ity to investigate failed to confirm the belief which the defendants had had when they took it, they forthwith re- turned the coat. Under these cir cumstances the defendants are not li- able in damages for the taking or de- tention of the coat, (State vs. Mag nano, 97 Conn. 543). It further may be observed in this connection that no evidence was offered of any dam age resulting from the taking of this coat by the defendants.
 "I find against the defendants upon their counter-claim.
 Judgment may be entered for the defendants to recover their costs.
 BROWN, J."
 The memorandum of the court in the case of Josephine Fiedorowicz fol- lows:
 What is stated in the memor andum this day filed in the case of Anthony Fiedorowicz against the same defendants, which was tried to- gether with this case, being No. 24o16, with relation to the question of liability and damages for the taking the coat of the plaintiff in that case, applies to the similar question pre- scented by the second count in this case. For the reasons there stated l find that this plaintiff is not entitled to recover on the second count.
 ''The first count is based upon per sonal injuries alleged to have been in ficted by the defendants upon the plaintiff upon the same occasion. While apparently the most serious in juries of which the plaintiff here complains were sustained after she had actually gone out of the room where her son Frank was lawfully (see Memorandum in No. 24016) placed under arrest, I am satisfied upon all of the evidence that this plaintiff in common with her hus- band attempted to and did interfere to some extent with the orlcerS Tn the course of the arrest and removal of her son Frank, and the search for brass knuckles properly incidental thereto and while very likely these in juries might not have been received except for the further trouble in the kitchen during which this plaintiff as disclosed by the evidence, attacked the defendants with vigor and mark ed at least one of them with one of the pots or pans which she apparent ly effectively wielded, still this melee was in fact a part of and certainly direct consequence of the resistance to Franks arrest and said search incl dental thereto and not of an attempt wrongfully to search the premises as claimed by the plaintiff. The plain tiff therefore is not entitled to recover on the first count of her complaint.