Opinion
No. 3529.
Decided May 1, 1945.
In an action for false imprisonment for the detention of the plaintiff without a warrant the defendant in order to avoid liability has the burden of justifying his act by showing that he had probable cause for imposing the particular restraint.
TRESPASS, for false imprisonment. Trial by jury with a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff was stopped by the defendant's agent as she was attempting to leave its store without paying for some meat which she had purchased therein and detained pending the adjustment of the difficulty. The plaintiff seasonably requested the Court to charge the jury as follows: "Any arrest or detention of a person is presumed to be unlawful and the burden is upon the defendant to show it was lawful." This request was denied and the plaintiff excepted. Transferred by Connor, J.
George R. Grant, Jr. (by brief and orally), for the plaintiff.
Charles F. Hartnett (by brief and orally), for the defendant.
The case was tried as though a formal plea of justification had been filed. Defendant's counsel in his argument to the jury said: "I say that justification extends not only to what was taken that day but whatever might have been taken before." And the Court informed the jury that the defendant "says that it was justified in restraining her."
It is the general rule that in the case of detention without a warrant, the defendant, in order to avoid liability, has the burden of justifying his act by showing that he had probable cause for imposing the particular restraint. Jackson v. Knowlton, 173 Mass. 94. See, also, Noyes v. Edgerly, 71 N.H. 500, 502; Clark v. Tilton, 74 N.H. 330, 332.
Under the principle of Burke v. Railroad, 82 N.H. 350, 361, the jury should have been instructed in accordance with this rule without reference to the presumption stated in the request.
New trial.