Samuel v. Blackwell

Citations

• 76 Pa. Super. 540
• 1921 Pa. Super. LEXIS 183

Syllabus

<p>Trespass — False imprisonment — Disturbing of public meeting— Act of March SI, 1860, P. L. 392 — Act of May 2,1901, P. L. 132— GhaA'ge to jury.</p> <p>The fact that a plaintiff had been arrested on a charge of disorderly conduct under the provisions of the Act of May 2, 1901, P. L. 132, and had been erroneously fined by a magistrate, which judgment was afterwards reversed on appeal, will not of itself make the arrest unlawful. If the evidence produced by the defendant was sufficient to warrant a finding that the plaintiff, at the time of his arrest, was actually engaged in wilfully and maliciously disturbing a public meeting, the jury should have been instructed that the defendant had reasonable grounds for asking the officers to make the arrest.</p> <p>False imprisonment consists in the confinement or detention of the person without sufficient authority; which authority may arise either from some process from the courts of justice, or from some warrant from a legal officer having power to commit; or from other special cause warranted, in the circumstances, either by common law or statute.</p> <p>The burden is upon the defendant when the party arrested peeks to recover damages, to prove that the imprisonment was by authority of law. The question of the probable cause for the arrest is one of law and upon this point there is no difference upon principle between an action for false imprisonment and one for malicious prosecution. Where the facts are in controversy the case must be submitted to the jury, in which event it is the duty of the court to instruct what facts will constitute probable cause, and to submit to them only the consideration of such facts.</p>