delivered the opinion of the court.
McFadden v. Adams Express Co., 185 Ill. App. 572 (1914)
March 30, 1914
·
Illinois Appellate Court
·
Gen. No. 18,974
185 Ill. App. 572
Daniel McFadden, Appellee, v. Adams Express Company, Appellant.
Gen. No. 18,974.
(Not to be reported in full.)
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Edward M. Mangan, Judge, presiding.
Heard in this court at the October term, 1912.
Reversed and remanded.
Opinion filed March 30, 1914.
Statement of the Case.
Action by Daniel McFadden against Adams Express Company to recover damages for false imprisonment of plaintiff by defendant. Defendant had employed a detective to investigate lost shipments and the detective suspecting that the theft had been committed by the plaintiff, an employe of defendant, had plaintiff arrested. The detective reported the arrest to the general manager of defendant who directed that plaintiff be held until it might be ascertained whether there was any police record against plaintiff, and upon no such record being found the general agent instructed the detective to tell the officer at the police station that the Company did not intend to prosecute plaintiff and plaintiff was set free. Plaintiff recovered a judgment for one thousand five hundred dollars, from which defendant appeals.
*573Abstract of the Decision.
1. False imprisonment, § 27 * —admissibility of evidence. In an action for false imprisonment on account of arrest of plaintiff, permitting plaintiff to introduce evidence of a visit made by a detective, employed by defendant, and police officers at the home of plaintiff’s fiancee, after the arrest, showing that the visit was made late at night, that the bedroom of plaintiff’s fiancee was searched and that she was accused of improper conduct; and permitting testimony of the bad conditions of the police station and the food which was given plaintiff, held improper and highly prejudicial.
2. Trial, § 119 * —when remarle of counsel not improper. In an action for false imprisonment, a remark of defendant’s counsel in his closing argument in discussing the amount of possible damages, that the person who was responsible for the arrest of plaintiff was not a party defendant, held improperly stricken out in view of the argument of plaintiff’s counsel to the effect that it was only from the defendant that plaintiff could get compensation.
3. Appeal and error, § 1514 * —when remarles of counsel prejudicial. In an action for false imprisonment on account of arrest of plaintiff at the instance of a detective employed by defendant, permitting plaintiff’s counsel in his open statement to the jury to describe a visit by the detective and police officers at the home of plaintiff’s fiancee after the arrest, and also a statement of plaintiff’s counsel to the jury that plaintiff had been beaten at the station by a police officer, though objection to the latter remark was sustained, held prejudicial error.
4. Appeal and error, § 1779 * —when characterisation of persons in instruction prejudicial. Giving of instructions for plaintiff in an action for false imprisonment, referring to the arrest of plaintiff as being made by defendant’s “authorized agents,” held prejudicial error.
Charles B. Elder, for appellant.
White & Marie, for appellee; Lemuel M. Ackley, of counsel.