Case Name: Daniel C. Hewitt, App'lt, v. Moses Newburger, Resp't
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1892-11-22
Citations: 48 N.Y. St. Rep. 811
Docket Number: 
Parties: Daniel C. Hewitt, App’lt, v. Moses Newburger, Resp’t.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 48
Pages: 811–814

Head Matter:
Daniel C. Hewitt, App’lt, v. Moses Newburger, Resp’t.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department,
Filed November 22, 1892.)
1. Criminal law—Sufficiency of information.
Informations lodged before committing magistrates are sufficient if they specify in plain terms the charge made, so stated that the person proceeded against knows exactly what is charged against him.
3. Same—Responsibility op complainant.
After an information is lodged the magistrate becomes the responsible-party; he is to determine from such information whether a warrant should issue, and he, not the person lodging the information, is responsible for its form.
3. Same—Inferior courts—Form of-procedure—Construction.
Proceedings before inferior courts are, so far as the mere forms of procedure therein are concerned; to be liberally construed.
4. False imprisonment—Malice not an element of.
In an action for damages for false imprisonment, evidence offered to-prove malice is properly rejected, malice not being an element of false imprisonment. ¡J
Appeal from a judgment entered in this action in the Montgomery county clerk’s office on May 28, 1892, dismissing ¡the complaint and for $152.71 costs, after trial before Mr. Justice-Kellogg and a jury at the Montgomery county circuit.
The action was brought to recover damages for an alleged false-imprisonment. The defendant denied the complaint and justified, setting up that the arrest was made pursuant to a complaint duly made by him to the recorder of the city of Amsterdam, who had jurisdiction, and a warrant lawfully issued thereon. U
The following is a copy of the complaint made to the recorder upon which the warrant for the arrest was made:
“Information.
“State of New York,
“ County of Montgomery, ss.:
"City of Amsterdam,
“ Moses Hewburger, of said county, being duly sworn, says, that on the 27th day of June, 1891, at the city of Amsterdam, in the said county, one Daniel Hewitt did threaten to commit the-crime of injuring property belonging to the City Mills, a- corporation in said city of Amsterdam, ihlthat he threatened to tear down a wall now being erected by said corporation, and being the property thereof, and the same is being built for the purpose of a-dam, and there is just reason to fear that the said Daniel 0. Hewitt, will tear down and demolish said wall, as he, the said Daniel 0. Hewitt, hath as above threatened to do.
“Wherefore, this deponent prays that a warrant issue for the arrest of said accused, and that he be dealt with pursuant to the-provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
“Moses Hewbtjrg-er,
“ Complainant.
"“ Sworn to before me this 27th day of June, 1891.
“G-eorge B. White,
... “ Recorder of the City of Amsterdam, N. K”
The plaintiff was arrested and brought before the recorder by a police officer, upon a warrant issued.
' The plaintiff’s arrest was merely technical ■ and he was put to no particular inconvenience, and was at no time actually restrained or imprisoned. And the recorder finally discharged him upon the importunities of his counsel and threats that he would sue the recorder for false imprisonment.
When, the proofs were closed, defendant’s counsel moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the recorder had jurisdiction of the alleged offense, and, as recorder, determined that the complaint was sufficient; that defendant Hewitt had threatened to commit a criminal offense, and having jurisdiction to so determine, defendant in this action is not liable for false arrest, and upon the facts and the law he could not be held liable for false imprisonment.
The court after careful argument and consideration granted th& motion, and dismissed the complaint.
Edward P. White, for app’lt; Westbrook, Borst & Perkins, (Westbrook & Borst, of counsel), for resp’t.

Opinion:
Herrick, J.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, like the original Code of Civil Procedure, was intended to simplify pleadings; and informations like complaints are sufficient, if in plain terms they specify the charge made, so stated that the person proceeded against knows exactly what is charged against him. Proceedings before inferior courts are, so far as the mere forms of procedure therein are concerned, to be liberally construed.
Informations lodged before committing magistrates, and warrants issued upon them, are not expected to be drawn with the same technical accuracy that an indictment should be.
" The information is the allegation made to a magistrate that a. person has been guilty of some designated crime." Code of Grim. Pro., § 145.
So far as I know no construction of this section has been given by the courts. It certainly cannot be expected that persons before they can safely go to a magistrate for relief must employ some one learned in all the niceties of pleading, and acquainted with the definitions of crimes, nor that they shall possess such knowledge themselves. Courts of minor criminal jurisdiction are courts where people are expected and invited to initiate prosecutions without counsel, and it is the policy of the law to encourage them in so doing; and the proceedings then should be so regulated that the unlettered and unlearned may enter freely, without fear that their ignorance of the forms of law and its terms may lead them into greater dangers or difficulties than, those from which they •seek protection or redress.
A plain statement of the acts of which they complain, without stating the evidence, it seems to me, is sufficient
The magistrate then becomes the responsible party, he is to determine from that statement or information whether a warrant should issue, and he, not the person lodging the information, is responsible for its form; the person lodging the information being liable in an action for malicious prosecution if he wilfully, corruptly or maliciously misleads the magistrate by any false statement in his information.
In this particular case the magistrate personally drew up the-information, after an oral examination or statement made to him by the. defendant. It states in simple and direct terms what the defendant complained of, so that both the magistrate and the defendant could understand the charge made, and, tested by the principles I have suggested, it seems to me sufficient. Von Latham v. Libby, 38 Barb., 389 ; Pratt v. Bogardus, 49 id., 89.
The warrant follows the information and fully apprises the defendant of the charge against him, and while, perhaps, it might be open to objection where a direct attack was made, as upon an application to discharge the person arrested upon it, yet when it is attacked collaterally, and bearing in mind that the same technical accuracy is not to be insisted upon in process issuing from minor courts as in indictments, I think it should be held sufficient.
The evidence offered to prove malice was properly rejected; malice is not an element of false imprisonment. 7 American and English Encyclopedia! of Law, 664.
The judgment should be affirmed.
Mayham:, P. J., and Putnam, J., concur.