Wilson v. Manhattan Railway Co.

Mot often does a railroad company appear in court with a case of such moral merit as, in the present action, must be conceded to the defendant. It is sued for damages incurred, if at all, in attempting to protect its female pas, sengers from indecent assaults; and surely it is entitled to every encouragement in so laudable an endeavor. Still, unless error be apparent in the record, we have no alternative but to affirm the judgment.

It is admitted that the plaintiff was arrested; and, hence, the only issues before the jury were, whether he was arrested by the defendant, and whether his arrest was unlawful.

That the plaintiff was arrested at the instigation of the defendant, that is by the defendant, and that he was innocent •of the offense for which he was detained, were found by the jury upon conflicting evidence; and we are not of the opinion that the preponderance of proof against these facts is so clear and decisive as to justify us in reversing the denial of a new trial by the learned judge who heard the testimony and observed the witnesses. From his position he was peculiarly qualified to determine whether the verdict involved a miscarriage of justice; and although it appears to us of doubtful validity, we do not feel authorized to gainsay the concurrent jonclusions of the jury and the presiding judge.

The plaintiff was arrested for breach of the peace, but without a warrant; and the question is, did the occasion authorize the arrest by the defendant without a warrant ?

In this state the law is : that “ if a felony or a breach of the peace, has, in fact, been committed by the person arrested, the arrest may be justified, by any person without a warrant,. whether there was time to procure a warrant or not; hut if an innocent person be arrested upon suspicion by a private individual, such individual is not excused unless such offense has, i/nfact, been committed, a/nd there was reasonable ground to suspect the jperson arrestedP Burns v. Erben, 40 N. Y. 463 , 466; Hawley v. Butler, 54 Barb. 490 ; Brown v. Chadsey, 39 id. 253, 263 ; Holley v. Mix, 3 Wend. 350 .

The defendant, then, being justified in the arrest if a breach of the peace had been committed and there was reasonable ground to suspect the plaintiff of the offense, the inquiry is, had such breach been committed, and was probable cause shown to suspect the plaintiff? Since the assault, if any, upon the lady was commited by the plaintiff, and he testified that he put his hand on her shoulder with an innocent and even commendable motive, the conflict of evidence raised a question for the jury, and the verdict is conclusive against the

It follows, therefore, that the defendant failed to justify the arrest.

The police court convicted the plaintiff; and appellant contends that the trial judge erred in refusing to charge that such conviction was evidence of plaintiff’s guilt. The proposition is untenable. A judgment in a criminal prosecution is admissible in civil- case only to establish the fact of the rendition of the judgment, but is not evidence of the facts upon which tire judgment proceeded, that is, of the guilt of the accused. And this because neither the parties, nor the rules of decision, nor the course of proceedings, are identical in the two actions. 1 Greenl. on Ev. § 587; 2 Wharton’s Law of Ev. § 776. In malicious prosecution an acquittal of the plaintiff, though an indispensable condition of the action, is not evidence of his innocence between the parties.

Appellant urges, finally, that the trial judge coerced the jury to an agreement on a verdict; but the contention is without support in the record. “ It is not error for a judge to refuse to discharge the jury until they have agreed upon their verdict; and whether or not to discharge them then, is a question addressed to his discretion.” White v. Calder, 35 N. Y. 183 . It is his right, and his duty even, to exhort the jury to an agreement. S. C., 184; Green v. Telfair, 11 How. Pr. 260 ; Erwin v. Hamilton, 50 id. 32. The motion, moreover, should have been made at Special Term. Cases, swpra.

We have considered the case as if the points discussed were presented by the pleadings; but, in truth, neither justification of the arrest nor defendant’s responsibility for it, was put in issue by the answer. A denial of knowledge or information whether defendant caused the arrest, is nugatory (Lawrence v. Derby, 15 Abb. 346 , note); and justification, to be avail-

It results that the judgment must be affirmed.

Bisohoff and Bookstaveb, J.J., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.