{
  "id": 2852513,
  "name": "Daniel McFadden, Appellee, v. Adams Express Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "McFadden v. Adams Express Co.",
  "decision_date": "1914-03-30",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 18,974",
  "first_page": "572",
  "last_page": "573",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "185 Ill. App. 572"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 218,
    "char_count": 3272,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.529,
    "sha256": "4137f1ae0573176c72c16b4ffc2ff883eb85db0a19f5da066c6675f08146cc7a",
    "simhash": "1:12f202b2ff89c48d",
    "word_count": 523
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:43:38.716309+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Daniel McFadden, Appellee, v. Adams Express Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Charles B. Elder, for appellant.",
      "White & Marie, for appellee; Lemuel M. Ackley, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Daniel McFadden, Appellee, v. Adams Express Company, Appellant.\nGen. No. 18,974.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Edward M. Mangan, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1912.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed March 30, 1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction 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.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. False imprisonment, \u00a7 27 \u2014admissibility 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\u2019s fiancee, after the arrest, showing that the visit was made late at night, that the bedroom of plaintiff\u2019s 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.\n2. Trial, \u00a7 119 \u2014when remarle of counsel not improper. In an action for false imprisonment, a remark of defendant\u2019s 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\u2019s counsel to the effect that it was only from the defendant that plaintiff could get compensation.\n3. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1514 \u2014when 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\u2019s counsel in his open statement to the jury to describe a visit by the detective and police officers at the home of plaintiff\u2019s fiancee after the arrest, and also a statement of plaintiff\u2019s 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.\n4. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1779 \u2014when 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\u2019s \u201cauthorized agents,\u201d held prejudicial error.\nCharles B. Elder, for appellant.\nWhite & Marie, for appellee; Lemuel M. Ackley, of counsel.\nSeo Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0572-01",
  "first_page_order": 598,
  "last_page_order": 599
}