Court Opinion

ID: 9844242
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 02:59:37.203179+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:30.899541
License: Public Domain

MOORE, P. J., Concurring.
I concur.
Under the facts of this case, while there was much to arouse suspicion, there does not appear to have been probable cause for the arrest of plaintiffs. But in view of the extraordinary events that surrounded the barbarous maiming and beating of certain workers while a strike was in progress, it appears no more than reasonable that an officer in the discharge of his duties should have taken pains to get legal evidence before accusing those suspected. Whether he took more than a reasonable time after taking them into custody before releasing or bringing the suspects before the magistrate, was a question for the jury’s determination.
Wood, J., dissented.
A petition by respondents to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on February 19, 1940.