Dowdell v. Owl Drug Co.

[317]

CONREY, P. J.

This is an appeal by defendants The Owl Drug Company and William E. Smith, an employee of said company, from a judgment upon a verdict awarding to plaintiffs the sum of $25,000 as damages for false imprisonment of plaintiff Smiles Elsie Dowdell.

Mrs. Dowdell was employed by The Owl Drug Company as saleswoman, and defendant Smith was employed by said company as an investigator. On March 19, 1928, defendant Fore, a sergeant in the Los Angeles police department, brought one Palmer to the office of Captain of Detectives Cato at Sawtelle on a charge of “suspicion of burglary”, preferred by Mrs. Dowdell. During the course of this investigation Palmer volunteered to Captain Cato information that Mrs. Dowdell had stolen merchandise from The Owl Drug Company. Captain Cato thereupon telephoned to defendant Smith and instructed Officer Fore to get Smith and go with him to Mrs. Dowdell’s house, and in the event that they found there property they could identify as coming from The Owl Drug Company, to make the arrest. Thereupon Smith went to the police station and directed defendants Officers Fore and Brinnegar to the residence of Mrs. Dowdell. The officers had no search-warrant, nor any warrant for Mrs. Dowdell’s arrest, but the two officers and Smith proceeded to make a thorough search of Mrs. Dow-dell’s house and garage, during the course of which Smith identified many articles as having come from The Owl Drug Company. Some were in the house, .others in a trunk in the garage. Mrs. Dowdell was arrested and taken to the ■Sawtelle police station, from there she was removed to the city jail and then to the county jail, where she was confined until March 22, 1928, at which time she was released from custody, never having been taken before a magistrate and no charge ever having been filed or procured against her.

Appellants urge as grounds for a reversal of the judgment the following:

1. That there was no evidence to show any authorization by The Owl Drug Company for the act of arrest; and that no authority therefor was to be implied from the nature of Smith’s employment with the company;

2. That the arrest, although without a warrant, was made by peace officers upon reasonable grounds for their belief