Hopner v. McGowan — 54 N.Y. Super. Ct. 98

Majority

p. 98

LEWIS HOPNER, Appellant, v. JOHN. E. McGOWAN, Respondent.

Headnote

False imprisonment—what does not constitute.

Plaintiff was arrested by a police officer on a charge of assault, and taken to a police court, where his conduct was such as to disturb the proceedings of the court, and upon the direction of one of the officers thereof he was removed by the policeman to the prisoners’ room adjoining, until his case was brought up. There was no evidence that his case would have been sooner disposed of had he not been so removed.

Held, not sufficient to sustain an action of false imprisonment against such court officer.

Before Sedgwick, Ch. J., Freedman and Ingraham, JJ.

Decided December 17, 1886.

Appeal by plaintiff from judgment entered on verdict in favor of defendant, directed by the court.

Action for false imprisonment brought by the plaintiff against the defendant who, at the time of the matters complained of, was an assistant to the clerk of a police court in this city.

The plaintiff alleged in his complaint, that on April 12, 1884, the defendant, by the aid of a police officer, forcibly compelled him to enter a room adjoining a police court room in the twelfth ward of this city, in which criminals and those accused of crime are imprisoned while awaiting trial or hearing, and caused him to be therein imprisoned for about thirty minutes without any right or authority, and to his damage.

Further facts appear in the opinion.

Sackett, Lang, Reed and McKenna, for appellant.

Gratz Nathan, for respondent.

This action was brought to recover damages for false imprisonment. To sustain the action, plaintiff must prove an unlawful restraint of his liberty by the defendant.

Plaintiff was charged with an assault on a person engaged in erecting a telegraph pole in front of plaintiff’s premises, was arrested by a police officer, and taken to the police court by said officer, and was under arrest.

His imprisonment was caused by the arrest, such imprisonment continuing until his discharge. Whether he should be permitted to remain in the court-room or taken to an adjoining room where prisoners were usually kept, was within the discretion of the officer. He was in either place in custody.

The direction to the police officer to remove plaintiff from the court-room to the room kept for the confinement of prisoners, until his case could be heard by the magistrate, was not therefore an illegal restraint of plaintiff’s person. There was no evidence that plaintiff’s case would have been sooner disposed of if he had not been removed. He was only kept in the prisoners’ room a few moments, when he was brought before the magistrate and committed for trial. Plaintiff was just as much restrained of his liberty before the direction as after, the detention being in a different place.

It is clear, from all the evidence, that plaintiff’s conduct in the courtroom was such as disturbed the proceedings of the court, and it was the duty of the officers of the court to preserve order. The direction given by the defendant was simply the proper performance of that duty; and it is, to say the least, a novel proposition that the fact that the prisoner’s preference as to the particular place of his confinement was not consulted would give him a cause of action as against the officer selecting such place of detention.

The judgment must be affirmed, with costs.