Dedebant v. Maestri
Dedebant v. Maestri, 64 So. 142 (La. 1913).
Cited by
- Edmond v. Webre 413 So. 2d 306 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
- Hawthorne Oil & Gas Corp. v. Continental Oil Co. 377 So. 2d 285 La. 1979
- Clement v. Redi-Bilt Corporation 249 So. 2d 607 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1971
- Recile v. Weigel 188 So. 2d 636 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1966
- Anglade v. Hemenway Furniture Co. 151 So. 2d 164 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
- Glover v. Mayer 25 So. 2d 242 La. 1946
- Rhodes v. Chrysanthou 186 So. 333 La. 1939
- Boyett v. King 180 So. 168 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
- Marretta v. General Exchange Ins. Corporation 169 So. 561 La. 1936
- Strong v. American Ry. Express Co. 111 So. 669 La. 1927
- Mullen v. Gause 109 So. 31 La. 1926
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Sandoz v. Veazie 106 La. 202
- Thomas v. Henderson 125 La. 292
Opinion text
PROVOSTY, J. The reasons for judgment of the trial judge in this case read as follows: “This is a suit for damages, based upon the charge of malicious arrest of plaintiff by the defendant. There seems to have been a difficulty between the plaintiff and the defendant, during the course of which the plaintiff drew a pistol. Subsequent to the difficulty, probably half an hour afterwards, the defendant saw plaintiff on his wagon delivering milk, and called an officer and instructed him to arrest Dedebant, which accordingly was done, but without a warrant. Subsequently defendant made an affidavit against plaintiff in the Second city criminal court, upon the trial of which he was discharged. Defendant then laid the matter, before the district attorney, who filed an information charging the plaintiff with carrying a concealed weapon. On this charge also he was discharged in the criminal district court. [1] “In so far as concerns the charge before the criminal district court, which was by information filed by the district attorney, in my opinion, no damages should be allowed, as that case appears to be covered by the decision in the case of Sandoz v. Veazie, 106 La. 202 , 30 South. 767 . [2] “The arrest by the officer, without a warrant, under instructions fx-om the defendant, Maestri, seems to me to be covered by the case of Thomas v. Henderson, 125 La. 292 , 51 South. 202 . In that case there was no actual arrest. The defendant Ghexnayder instructed the officer to arrest the plaintiff Thomas, and the officer merely told him to consider himself under arrest and to report at court the next morning, which was done. Subsequently, a suit was filed for malicious arrest, and in that case the court found for the plaintiff against the defendant Chexnaydex-, who had caused the arrest, and fixed the .damages at $250. [3] “In the instant case, the evidence shows that the plaintiff was in jail for about five hours until able to secure a bondsman. The damages in this case, therefore, I think should be greater than in the Thomas case, where the plaintiff was never at any time incarcerated. “All things considered, I think in this case a judgment of $750 would be about fair.” This judgment, for the reasons therein stated, is affirmed.