
    Olmstead v. Doland.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
    
    July 2, 1889.)
    False Imprisonment—Probable Cause.
    The evidence showed that plaintiff in an action for false imprisonment obtained a horse and wagon from the boy in charge of defendant’s livery stable, at 3 o’clock
    
      in the morning, on the statement that he would return about 9 o’clock that day, that he was a regular customer at the stable, and had hired buggies there before, which was not true. He did not give his name. The horse and wagon did not return, and defendant procured a warrant for plaintiff’s arrest. There was evidence that plaintiff attempted to escape after he, learned that the warrant had been issued. When taken before the justice, he pleaded guilty, and paid $20, and the charge was withdrawn. Held, that the arrest was justified.
    Appeal from circuit court, Westchester county. "
    Action by Miles W. Olmstead against Asa Doland for false imprisonment. Plaintiff appeals from a judgment entered on a verdict for defendant, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial.
    Argued before Barnard, P. J., and Pratt, J.
    
      Henry C. Griffin, for appellant. George O. Andrews, for respondent.
   Barnard, P. J.

The plaintiff, in his complaint, avers that the defendant caused his arrest for stealing the defendant’s horse and wagon. The further .averment is made in the complaint that the arrest was caused without any probable cause to believe the plaintiff guilty of the crime. The defendant, in his answer, admits that he caused the arrest for the cause stated in the complaint, and contends that the plaintiff was guilty of the offense. The jury have found in favor of the defendant. The finding is abundantly supported by the evidence. It appears from the evidence that on the 15th of April, 1888, the plaintiff and another man went to the livery stable of the defendant to hire a .horse and wagon. It was about 3 o’clock in the morning. The men waked up the boy in charge of the stable, and the plaintiff got of him a horse and wagon on the statement that he would be back by 9 or 10 o’clock on that day. He further stated that he was a regular customer at the defendant’s stables, and had hired buggies there before. The fact was not true. He had never hired horses at the stables before, and he did not give his name. The. boy let •the plaintiff have the property solely on this false statement. The horse and wagon did not return as promised, and on Wednesday the defendant made a complaint. The arrest was made under circumstances which justified the inference that the plaintiff was attempting to escape after he had notice that the •constable had a warrant for his arrest. When taken before the justice he pleaded guilty to the charge, and paid $20, and the charge was withdrawn. Whether or not the charge would have held good upon a trial is of no importance The facts proven justified the arrest. Thaule v. Krekeler, 81 N. Y. 428. The. .release of the plaintiff with the property on the evening of Wednesday is a fact of no importance, as the warrant was then in the hands of the officer, and the case must be determined by the facts as they existed in the afternoon of Wednesday, when the warrant was issued. The plaintiff’s conduct subsequent to the return is not free from unfavorable inferences. The judgment .should be affirmed, with costs.  