McGarrahan v. Lavers

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

McGarrahan v. Lavers

3 A. 592, 15 R.I. 302, 1866 R.I. LEXIS 2

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedApril 3, 1866

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 3 A. 592 (McGarrahan v. Lavers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McGarrahan v. Lavers, 3 A. 592, 15 R.I. 302, 1866 R.I. LEXIS 2 (R.I. 1866).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This action comes up from the Court of Common Pleas on exceptions. It is an action of trespass for assault and battery and false imprisonment. At the trial in the court below, testimony was introduced to show that the plaintiff, at a restaurant, ordered a rare steak. The waiter brought him one which was' well done, which the plaintiff refused to take. He repeated his order, and the waiter brought him another steak, which was rare, and which he accepted and offered to pay for, but refused to pay for the one which was well done. The defendant, a clerk having charge of the restaurant, directed an officer to take the plaintiff into custody. The officer obeyed, and took the plaintiff to the police station, from which he was removed to the jail. On trial for the offence he was acquitted. The plaintiff in the court below rested after the production of this testimony, and thereupon the court, on motion of the defendant, granted a non-suit. The ground of the nonsuit was that the defendant Lavers simply gave the direction for the arrest, and did not otherwise participate in it.

We think the nonsuit was erroneous. The law is well settled that every private person is responsible for a wrongful imprisonment directed or authorized by him. Barker v. Graham, 2 W. Bl. 866; Collett v. Foster, 2 H. & N. 356 ; Burnap v. Marsh, 13 Ill. 535; Clifton v. Grayson, 2 Stew. Ala. 412.

• Exceptions sustained, and case remitted to Court of Common Pleas for a new trial.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

This action comes up from the Court of Common Pleas on exceptions. It is an action of trespass for assault and battery and false imprisonment. At the trial in the court below, testimony was introduced to show that the plaintiff, at a restaurant, ordered a rare steak. The waiter brought him one which was' well done, which the plaintiff refused to take. He repeated his order, and the waiter brought him another steak, which was rare, and which he accepted and offered to pay for, but refused to pay for the one which was well done. The defendant, a clerk having charge of the restaurant, directed an officer to take the plaintiff into custody. The officer obeyed, and took the plaintiff to the police station, from which he was removed to the jail. On trial for the offence he was acquitted. The plaintiff in the court below rested after the production of this testimony, and thereupon the court, on motion of the defendant, granted a non-suit. The ground of the nonsuit was that the defendant Lavers simply gave the direction for the arrest, and did not otherwise participate in it.

We think the nonsuit was erroneous. The law is well settled that every private person is responsible for a wrongful imprisonment directed or authorized by him. Barker v. Graham, 2 W. Bl. 866; Collett v. Foster, 2 H. & N. 356 ; Burnap v. Marsh, 13 Ill. 535; Clifton v. Grayson, 2 Stew. Ala. 412.

• Exceptions sustained, and case remitted to Court of Common Pleas for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A. 592, 15 R.I. 302, 1866 R.I. LEXIS 2, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcgarrahan-v-lavers-ri-1866.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack