The amount of damages to be awarded in an action for false imprisonment is a question for the jury, and the general rule is that their verdict will not be disturbed on the ground of excessiveness unless it is so flagrantly large as to evince passion, partiality or corruption.

England.-Fabrigas v. Mostyn, 2 W. Bl. 929; Edgell v. Francis, 1 Scott. N. R. 121; Leeman v. Allen, 2 Wils. C. Pl. 160; Huckle v. Money, 2 Wils. C. Pl. 205.

Canada.-Clissold v. Machell, 25 U. C. Q. B. 80, 26 U. C. Q. B. 422; Markey v. Sloat, 41 New Bruns. 234.

United States.-Harris v. Louisville, etc. R. Co. 35 Fed. 116; Clarke v. American Dock, etc. Co. 35 Fed. 478.

California. -Gomez v. Scanlan, 155 Cal. 528, 102 Pac. 12.

Colorado.-Union Depot, etc. Co. v. Smith, 16 Colo. 361, 27 Pac. 329.

Georgia.-See Southern R. Co. v. Gresham, 114 Ga. 183, 39 S. E. 883.

Illinois.-Marsh v. Smith, 49 Ill. 396; Newton v. Locklin, 77 Ill. 103.

Indiana.-Efroymson v. Smith, 29 Ind. App. 451, 63 N. E. 328; Golibart v. Sullivan, 30 Ind. App. 428, 66 N. E. 188; Ayres v. Harmon, 56 Ind. App. 436, 104 N. E. 315. Iowa.-Young v. Gormley, 120 Ia. 372, 94 N. W. 922.

Kentucky.-Webber v. Kenny, 1 A. K. Marsh. 345; Ross v. Kohler, 163 Ky. 583, 174 S. W. 36, L.R.A.1915D 598; Scott v. Com. 93 S. W. 668, 29 Ky. L. Rep. 571; Foor v. Coombs, 15 Ky. L. Rep. 845.

Minnesota. Judson v. Reardon, 16 Minn. 431; Rauma v. Lamont, 82 Minn. 477, 85 N. W. 236; Nelson v. Halvorson, 117 Minn. 255, Ann. Cas. 1913D 104, 135 N. W. 818.

Missouri.-Dunlevy v. Wolferman, 106 Mo. App. 46, 79 S. W. 1165; Mueller v. St. Louis Transit Co. 108 Mo. App. 325, 83 S. W. 270. New York.-Pastor v. Regan, 9 Misc. 547, 30 N. Y. S. 657; Fuller v. Redding, 16 Misc. 634, 39 N. Y. S. 109; Biggs v. Schultz, 42 Hun 657, 5 N. Y. St. Rep. 56.

Oklahoma.-Chicago, etc. R. Co. v. Radford, 36 Okla. 657, 129 Pac. 834.

Rhode Island.-Baker v. Tyler, 67 Atl. 430. Tennessee.-Moore v. Burchfield, 1 Heisk.

203.

Virginia.-Boltons v. Vellines, 94 Va. 393, 26 S. E. 847, 64 Am. St. Rep. 737.

Washington.-Hamilton v. Pacific Drug Co. 78 Wash. 689, 139 Pac. 642.

West Virginia.-Davis v. Chesapeake, etc. R. Co. 61 W. Va. 246, 56 S. E. 400, 9 L.R.A. (N.S.) 993; Howell v. Wysor, reported in full, post, this volume, at page 519.

Wisconsin.-Sorenson v. Dundas, 50 Wis. 335, 7 N. W. 259.

Thus in Ross v. Kohler, 163 Ky. 583, 174 S. W. 36, L.R.A.1915D 621, the court said: "The rule seems to be that . . . the court will not disturb the verdict of a properly instructed jury, on account of the sum of damages allowed being excessive, unless it appears that there is a flagrant abuse of discretion by the jury, or that the jury was actuated by passion or prejudice." And in Markey v. Sloat, 41 N. Bruns. 234, it was said: "There remains the question of excessive damages. In actions of false imprisonment and other injuries to the person, or character, although the rule remains that only such damages are recoverable as naturally flow from the wrongful act, there is no standard by which the money value of such injuries may be measured, and the only limit to the damages to be awarded is that they must be reasonable in amount. Where the person or character is injured, it is difficult, if not quite impossible to fix any limit, and the verdict is generally a resultant of the opposing forces of the counsel on either side tempered by such moderating remarks as the judge may think the occasion requires. It must not be supposed, however, that even cases of this sort are quite beyond rule. If that were so there could be no such thing as new trial for excessive damages. In cases of contracts a rule can be applied to the facts so accurately, as to make the amount a mere matter of calculation. In cases such as this one is, the rule goes no further than to point out what evidence may be admitted and what grounds of complaint may be allowed for. But when this is done, the amount of damages is entirely in the disposition of the jury. A new trial will only be granted where the verdict is so large as to satisfy the court that it was perverse and the result of gross error; or when it can be shown that

the jury have acted under the influence of undue motives or misconception." See also Gomez v. Scanlan, 155 Cal. 528, 102 Pac. 12, wherein the court said: "The amount of money which will compensate one for an unwarranted restraint of his person is not the subject of exact computation. Especially is this true where the invasion of the right of personal liberty is accompanied by circumstances causing humiliation, shame, and public disgrace to the party injured. In cases of this kind the extent to which the allowance may go must, in large measure, be left to the sound discretion of the jury. A court is justified in overturning a verdict as excessive only where its amount is 'obviously so disproportionate to the injury proved as to justify the conclusion that the verdict is not the result of the cool and dispassionate discretion of the jury.'

The fact that the amount awarded is larg er than the court would have allowed, does not make the verdict excessive. Webber v. Kenny, 1 A. K. Marsh. (Ky.) 345; Biggs v. Schultz, 42 Hun 657, 5 N. Y. St. Rep. 56; Pastor v. Regan, 9 Misc. 547, 30 N. Y. S. 657. In the case last cited, the court said: "The amount fixed by the jury in this case was probably larger than would have been given by the court, but the jury are the tribunal especially charged with the decision of questions involving the amount of damages, and no court is at liberty to interfere with their decision unless there is a plain abuse of their discretion."

However, the verdict will be set aside or a remittitur ordered, when the damages awarded are out of all reason and conscience, and so disproportionate to the injury sustained that they show that the jury were influenced by passion or prejudice. Price v. Severne, 5 M. & P. 125, 7 Bing. 316, 20 E. C. L. 145; Fanjoy v. Portland, 29 N. Bruns. 24; Fotheringham v. Adams Express Co. 36 Fed. 252, 1 L.R.A. 474; McCarty v. Fremont, 23 Cal. 196; Elser v. Southern Pac. Co. 7 Cal. App. 493, 94 Pac. 852; Philadelphia F. Assoc. v. Fleming, 78 Ga. 733, 3 S. E. 420; Johnson v. Von Kettler, 66 Ill. 63; Fadner v. Filer, 27 Ill. App. 506; Moore v. Durgin, 68 Me. 148; Woodward v. Glidden, 33 Minn. 108, 22 N. W. 127; Reuck v. McGregor, 32 N. J. L. 70; McConnell v. Hampton, 12 Johns. (N. Y.) 234; Moore v. Burchfield, 1 Heisk. (Tenn.) 203; Ogg v. Murdock, 25 W. Va. 139; Marshall v. Heller, 55 Wis. 392, 13 N. W 236. See also Cincinnati, etc. R. Co. v. Cundiff (Ky.) reported in full, post, this volume, at page 513. Thus in Reuck v. McGregor, supra, the Court said: "The chief ground upon which a new trial is asked in this case is that the damages are excessive. In these actions of tort, the court has, unquestionably, the power to grant a new trial

for that reason.

It is a delicate, yet necessary power, and should be exercised whenever it appears that the damages are so exorbitantly high, and so far exceed the injury sustained, as to make it manifest to the court that the minds of the jury have been controlled by passion, partiality, prejudice, or intemperance." And in Woodward v. Glidden, 33 Minn. 108, 22 N. W. 127, it was said: "The action is for false imprisonment, and .. the plaintiff is clearly entitled to maintain it, and to recover round damages. He is entitled to damages, both compensatory and punitive: the former, to make good the actual injury inflicted upon him; the latter, to punish and make an example of the wrongdoing of the defendant. But, notwithstanding the liberty necessarily allowed juries in estimating damages against a wilful wrongdoer, there must be reason even in verdicts. In this case the jury brought in a verdict for $2,917. It is manifest that the plaintiff was far from being entitled to any such sum as this for his actual or compensatory damages. By far the larger part of the sum must have been intended as punitory damages. But even as to damages of that kind a jury must keep within some reasonable limits. In our judgment the verdict was grossly excessive and exorbitant, and enormously disproportionate to the wrong of which defendant is guilty. We cannot account for it except upon the theory that the jury gave it under the influence of passion or prejudice. We are not unmindful that we are reviewing the action of the trial judge, which is to some extent discretionary, nor of his advantage over this court from the fact that he witnessed the trial; but we are, nevertheless, clear in the opinion that, in the exercise of a sound judicial discretion, the verdict should have been set aside and a new trial granted. We shall, therefore, reverse the order appealed from, and direct a new trial."

What are adequate damages is a question for the jury, and there seems to be no reported decision in which, in an action for false imprisonment, an English or Canadian court has set aside the verdict of the jury on the ground that the damages awarded were inadequate. It seems that such a verdict will never be set aside, in those jurisdictions, on account of the smallness of damages unless there has been an intentional violation of right or duty on the part of the jury. Mauricet v. Brecknock, 2 Dougl. 509; Bradlaugh v. Edwards, 11 C. B. (N. S.) 377, 103 E. C. L. 377; Apps v. Day, 14 C. B. 112, 78 E. C. L. 112; Sam Chak v. Campbell, 45 Nova Scotia 1. See also Barker v. Dixie, 2 Stra. 1051. In Bradlaugh v. Edwards, supra, Erle, C. J., in delivering the judgment of the court, said: "The last ground of the motion was, the inadequacy of the damages, the jury having

awarded the plaintiff only a farthing by way of compensation for his detention for several hours at the police station, when the expense actually incurred by him in defending himself and obtaining his release from that unfounded charge was £7. 14s. Now, if I saw clearly that there had been anything like an intentional violation of right or duty on the part of the jury, I should think it a fit case for the interference of the court. But, unless that was very clearly made out, I should be extremely scrupulous to enter into any discussion as to the amount of damages, which is entirely a matter for their consideration. Where a party has been illegally imprisoned, and has been put to expense in procuring his discharge he may very well urge that fact before the jury as an aggravation; but he has no right to demand to be reimbursed ex debito justitiae. It is in the discretion of the jury to give him such damages as they may consider a sufficient compensation for the wrong the party has sustained, irrespective of any expense he may, perhaps, needlessly have incurred in his defense."

The American courts are likewise reluctant to set aside the verdict of a jury on the ground that the damages awarded are not adequate compensation for the injury received from the false imprisonment, and the general rule is that the verdict will not be set aside on the ground that the damages awarded are too small. Henderson v. McReynolds, 60 Hun 579 mem. 14 N. Y. S. 351; Taylor v. Davis (Tex.) 13 S. W. 642; Wegner v. Risch, 114 Wis. 270, 90 N. W. 168. See also Gregory v. Chambers, 78 Mo. 294; Bergeron v. Peyton, 106 Wis. 377, 82 N. W. 291, 80 Am. St. Rep. 33. However, it has been held that the verdict will be set aside when the damages awarded are grossly inadequate to the injury sustained. Potter v. Swindle, 77 Ga. 419, 3 S. E. 94; Hoagland v. Forest Park Highlands Amusement Co. 170 Mo. 335, 70 S. W. 878, 94 Am. St. Rep. 740.

II. Excessiveness.

1. OFFICIAL IMPRISONMENT.

a. In General.

The following verdicts for official false imprisonment have been sustained as not excessive:

$16.-Cheng Fun v. Campbell, 44 Nova Scotia 51 (Chinaman detained and fined on false assumption that he had illegally evaded Canadian head tax, officer acted in good faith, amount awarded not unreasonable under cireumstances);

$100.-Pearson v. Great Southern Lumber Co. 134 La. 117, 63 So. 759 (man, arrested

without warrant on charge of breaking elec tric bulbs, was with guilty party at time);

$200.--Strozzi v. Wines, 24 Nev. 389, 55 Pac. 828, 57 Pac. 832 (man, dispute as to right to possession of land, void process, bad faith on part of prosecutor by taking posses sion while other party under arrest); Howell v. Wysor (W. Va.) reported in full, post, this volume, at page 579 (prosecution of husband for nonsupport of wife); Newton v. Locklin, 77 Ill. 103 (man, arrested by officer without warrant for violation of ordinance, illegally incarcerated for contempt of police justice, amount larger than proper, but not fiagrantly excessive);

$250.-Brosde v. Sanderson, 86 Wis. 368, 57 N. W. 49 (man, imprisonment for two days, commitment void for failure of justice to enter continuance); Thomas v. Henderson, 125 La. 292, 51 So. 202 (voter illegally arrested, told to consider himself under arrest, and report next day, probable cause);

$300.-Coffin v. Varila, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 417, 27 S. W. 956 (woman, arrested on void warrant in order that prosecutor might obtain possession of property she was occupying, violently seized, bruised, imprisoned one hour); Hight v. Naylor, 86 Ill. App. 508 (respectable young man arrested by private citizen without process on charge of stealing bicycle, turned over to night watchman, abusive language used, detained one hour in public place, refused permission to see those who could establish innocence); Markey v. Sloat, 41 N. Bruns. 234 (man, charged with nonpayment of dog tax, illegal warrant executed by constable, confined three days, cost of obtaining discharge $65); Gordon v. Hogan, 114 Ga. 354, 40 S. E. 229 (man, arrested without warrant on belief that he had not paid debt);

$400.-Young v. Gormley, 120 Ia. 372, 94 N. W. 922 (man, arrested in presence of family on charge of interfering with city officials in opening street, no warrant, caused to repeatedly appear before charge finally dismissed);

$450.-Ball v. Horrigan, 65 Hun 621 mem. 19 N. Y. S. 913 (young girl, playing, arrested for knocking over beer barrels, put in police box, taken to station house in police wagon);

$500.-Nelson v. Halvorson, 117 Minn. 255, 135 N. W. 818, Ann. Cas. 1913D 104 (man, arrested without warrant, charged with embezzlement, taken to lawyer's office and voluntarily turned pockets inside out); Hamilton v. Pacific Drug Co. 78 Wash. 689, 139 Pac. 642 (man, arrested as absconding debtor, taken from stateroom of boat after going to bed, carried to jail, money and other belongings taken from him, placed in cell with fifteen men charged with crime, released next day after money had been garnished); Nelson v.

Kellogg, 162 Cal. 621, Am. Cas. 1913D 759, 123 Pac. 1115 (woman illegally arrested on civil process, $150 liability incurred in procuring release);

$600.-Fuller v. Redding, 16 Misc. 634, 39 N. Y. S. 109 (woman, arrested on charge of riding bicycle on sidewalk, void process, bail, case dismissed);

$700.-Bulmer v. O'Sullivan, 28 Nova Scotia 406 (solicitor forcibly removed from court room and locked in cell);

$750.-Ross v. Kohler, 163 Ky. 583, 174 S. W. 36, L.R.A.1915D 621 (girl of seventeen, arrested without warrant, taken to police headquarters in police automobile, questioned about homicide she knew nothing of, firearms displayed);

$775.-Ryan v. Donnelly, 71 Ill. 100 (young woman, discharged as servant, accused of stealing $200, room searched without warrant, made to leave bed and dress before strangers, put in jail over night, $200 later found in accuser's possession);

$800.-McKelvey v. Marsh, 63 App. Div. 396, 10 N. Y. Ann. Cas. 178, 71 N. Y. S. 541 (innocent woman, imprisoned seven hours, void process, stripped naked before strange men); Rauma v. Lament, 82 Minn. 477, 85 N. W. 236 (man, forcibly ejected from premises, assaulted, cursed, threatened with pistol and confined in filthy jail two and onehalf hours); Judson v. Reardon, 16 Minn. 431 (man, arrested by fireman for driving across hose, not taken before magistrate, detained in jail two and one-half hours); Foor v. Coombs, 15 Ky. L. Rep. 845 (debtor, illegally arrested in civil action, no process, forced to pay debt to obtain release); Clissold v. Machell, 25 U. C. Q. B. 80, 26 U. C. Q. B. 422 (man, confined on charge of stealing, abused by magistrate trying case);

$1,000.-Thorp v. Cavalho, 14 Misc. 554, 36 N. Y. S. 1 (respectable man, requested by a friend to cash order, arrested for passing forged instrument, detained hour and half); Biggs v. Schultz, 42 Hun 657, 5 N. Y. St. Rep. 56 (crab vendor, arrested for trespassing on dock, detained over night, gave bail, mistake as to legal right on part of prosecutor); Fenelon v. Butts, 53 Wis. 344, 10 N. W. 501 (woman, taken from family, incarcerated in filthy cell, with nursing baby, mental anguish and impairment of health); Bolton v. Vellines, 94 Va. 393, 26 S. E. 847, 64 Am St. Rep. 737 (captain of police, arrested for appearing in uniform after term of office had expired, believed he held over until successsor qualified, carried through streets in prison van, searched and imprisoned until released on habeas corpus); Chapman v. Cawrey, 50 Ill. 514 (tenant returning home at night found entrance closed, removed obstruction, ordered to leave by landlord, threatened to kill landlord if he interfered, arrested and confined

for thirty-six hours; amount said to be very moderate); Wheeler, etc. Mfg. Co. v. Boyce, 36 Kan. 350, 13 Pac. 609, 59 Am. Rep. 571 (man, confined in jail without trial for refusal to deliver sewing machine which his wife had bought and paid for, malicious, larger verdict would have been sustained);

£200.-Edgell v. Francis, 1 Scott. N. R. (Eng.) 121 (secretary of bank, handcuffed and locked in cage over night at instigation of director of branch office where secretary was examining books late at night);

$1,250.-Rucker v. Barker (Tex.) 151 S. W. 871 (young man, refused to give up seat at medicine show, arrested in presence of crowd, dragged, struck with pistol, thrown down, imprisoned with negroes and Mexicans for about two hours);

£300.-Leeman v. Allen, 2 Wils. C. Pl. (Eng.) 160 (woman, cursed and imprisoned for few hours by "reforming" constables); Huckle v. Money, 2 Wils. C. Pl. (Eng.) 205 (printer, detained for six hours and treated civilly while in custody);

$1,700.-Reno v. Wilson, 49 Ill. 95 (arrest of respectable young man under degrading and humiliating circumstances and confinement all night in filthy jail with no food but bread and water, and publicly taken through streets next day, not the least pretense for charging with larceny);

$2,000.-Gomez v. Scanlan, 155 Cal. 528, 102 Pac. 12 (married woman, illegally arrested on pretended charge of larceny, mistreated and detained publicly before crowd for three or four hours, hysterical and sick in bed for two days);

$2,500.-Smith v. Macomber, 28 R. I. 248, 66 Atl. 570 (young man, paying unwelcome attentions to young lady, assaulted by her admirer, sought to have assailant arrested by young lady's uncle, who was chief of police, uncle arrested him instead, kept him in confinement several hours, lower court erred in ordering remittitur of $2,300); Allen v. Fromme, 141 App. Div. 362, 126 N. Y. S. 520 (young man, void execution, bail, required to keep jail limits, unable to attend to business or visit mother, about to enter profession, stigma on reputation);

$3,000.-Monjo v. Monjo, 53 Hun 145, 6 N. Y. S. 132 (mother, arrested on refusal to give up young child as decreed in divorce, conducted through public place to station house and imprisoned all night); Union Depot, etc. Co. v. Smith, 16 Colo. 361, 27 Pac. 329 (hackman, arrested on depot grounds for soliciting business by special railroad police under circumstances indicating oppressive use of supposed authority);

$3,500.-Cuthbert v. Gailoway, 35 Fed. 466 (man, detained three days on false charge of embezzlement);

$4,000.-Clarke v. American Dock, etc. Co. 35 Fed. 478 (respectable woman, arrested on false charge, and confined with disorderly woman, no probable cause and purpose was to keep her away until her things could be put out and house torn down);

£3,000.-Fabrigas v. Moystyn, 2 W. Bl. (Eng.) 929 (false imprisonment of a native by the Governor of Minorca).

The following verdicts for official false imprisonment have been declared excessive:

$200.-Lewis v. Clegg, 120 N. C. 292, 26 S. E. 772 (man, wrongfully arrested to enforce payment of debt, no actual damages; held that nominal damages only could be recovered);

$288.-Yost v. Tracy, 13 Utah 431, 45 Pac. 346 (man, arrested for making threats, could have given bail for good behavior but refused to do so, offered to go to jail unattended, dissatisfied when sheriff refused to lock him up on void commitment; remittitur of $188 required);

$400.-Robinson v. Clark, 53 Ill. App. 368 (man, arrested for wrongfully selling score cards on show grounds, detained one-half hour); Fanjoy v. Portland, 29 N. Bruns. 24 (man, imprisoned on false assumption that taxes had not been paid, no harsh treatment or want of courtesy; verdict reduced to 100);

$475.-Ogg v. Murdock, 25 W. Va. 139 (man, sixty years old, arrested under bona fide belief he was nonresident debtor, imprisoned four days in damp iron cell, absence of malice, no injury sustained other than loss of time);

£100.-Price v. Severne, 5 M. & P. 125, 7 Bing. 316, 20 E. C. L. 145, 9 L. J. C. Pl. 99 (begging relative turned over to constable and confined in inn for one night, paid expenses next morning);

$500.-Moore v. Durgin, 68 Me. 148 (man, arrested on charge of obstructing highway, renewing bridge under valid contract with city, ordered by city to stop, no injury except brief detention, courteously treated; remittitur of $400 required); Miller v. Ashcraft, 98 Ky. 314, 32 S. W. 1085 (man, restrained by town marshal few minutes, circumstances not humiliating or degrading, no injury, temper ruffled, second trial gave but $100);

$600.-Spillett v. Clear Lake Boating, etc. Co. (Ia.) 155 N. W. 822 (man, confined in jail one hour in night, no abusive treatment; remittitur of $400 required);

$750.-Leonard v. Pawtucket Amusement Co. (R. I.) 94 Atl. 669 (man, loud laughing at serious moving picture, arrested, no actual damage, account in paper; remittitur of $550 required);

$800.-Condron v. Carr, 156 App. Div. 658, 141 N. Y. S. 721 (laboring man, technical

false arrest on charge of stealing feed, detained three hours, bail given; remittitur of $700 required);

$1,000.-Fair v. Himmel, 50 Ill. App. 215 (saleswoman, accused of stealing scarf pin, hand put on shoulder and told to go to office where she remained for some considerable time of own volition); Philadelphia F. Assoc. v. Fleming, 78 Ga. 733, 3 S. E. 420 (man,' detained for short time until he was subpœnaed for grand jury in an arson case, treated well and suffered no indignity);

$2,000.-Brown v. Chadsey, 39 Barb. (N. Y.) 253 (stockholder of bank, arrested on suspicion of robbing bank, satchel searched on street, compelled to appear twice at police court, dismissed when no complaint made); Davern v. Drew, 153 App. Div. 844, 138 N. Y. S. 1017 (workman, held for extradition, mistaken identity, photographed, finger prints taken, imprisoned two days, arrest caused by officer of Employers' Protective Association in labor matters; remittitur of $1,000 required); Hamlin v. Martin, 56 Ill. 315 (man, arrested on suspicion at instigation of private person, confined about eight hours, strong circumstantial grounds for belief of guilt);

$2,500.-Stearns v. Oppenheim, 146 App. Div. 651, 131 N. Y. S. 533 (lawyer, received paper from an arrested man, refused to deliver to detectives, assaulted and imprisoned over night; remittitur of $1,500 required);

$2,917.-Woodward v. Glidden, 33 Minn. 108, 22 N. W. 127 (man, imprisoned without process for purpose of forcing payment of debt, detained three hours, no special indignity or actual injury);

$3,000.-Reuck v. McGregor, 32 N. J. L. 70 (respectable man, accused of stealing cloth, police called, gave bail, accuser honestly mistaken in identity of cloth);

$4,000.-Schneider v. McGill, 64 S. W. 835, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 587 (clerk of elections, arrested by police for disorderly conduct, detained three hours, no unusual indignity or violence); Johnson v. Von Kettler, 66 Ill. 63 (man, confined for contempt for failure of wife as administratrix to pay claim against estate, void commitment, conduct of husband fraudulent, and proceedings instigated in good faith; remittitur of $2,000 not sufficient);

$8,000.-Fadner v. Filer, 27 Ill. App. 506 (man, imprisoned few hours, struck blow but no evidence of injury arising therefrom, excessiveness not cured by remittitur of $2,000);

$37,500.-Kilbourn V. Thompson, MacArthur & M. (D. C.) 401 (man, illegally arrested by sergeant at arms of House of Representatives and confined for thirty-five days, no unnecessary harshness; remittitur of $17,500 required).