a statute like our own, has repeatedly held that a general instruction is not proper in connection with a special verdict, and that it is error to in- form the jury as to the effect of their answers upon the ultimate rights of the parties. Reed v. City of Madison, 85 Wis. 667; 56 N. W. 182; Coates v. Town of Stanton, go Wis. 130; 62 N. W. 619; Conway v. Mitchell, 97 Wis. 290; 72 N. W. 752; Kohler v. West Side Co. 99 Wis. 33; 74 N. W. 568; Ward v. C., M. & St. P. Ry. Co. (Wis.) 78 N. W. 442; Baxter v. C..& N. W. Ry. Co. (Wis.) 80 N. W. 644; Sladky v. Marinette Lumber Co. (Wis.) 83 N. W. 514; Musbach v. Wisconsin Chair Co. (Wis.) 84 N. W. 36; Mauch v. City of Hartford, (Wis.) 87 N. W. 816: Ryington v. City of Merrill, (Wis.) 87 N. W. 26; See also I., P.& C. Ry. Co. v. Bush, 101 Ind. 582.
Curtis & Remington & E. T. Burke, for respondent.
Grace, C. J. This action is one where plaintiff recovered judgment for $1,500 against the three defendants, Horton, Kirby, and Martincka, as officers, servants, agents, and employees of the Horton Motor Company, for damages for false arrest and imprisonment.
The complaint, in substance, charges that the defendants conspired together to cause his unlawful arrest and imprisonment. At the close of plaintiff’s case the action against the Horton Motor Company was dis- missed and the case submitted to the jury on a special verdict as to the three defendants above named. Damages were fixed at the amount above named. Judgment was entered on the special verdict. The appeal is from the judgment. The complaint is short and in the ordinary form in such actions.
The answer, after the interposition of a specific denial of the allegations of the complaint, pleads a justification of the arrest, alleging that it was by authority of law and by virtue of a warrant of arrest duly issued and in the hands of proper authorities and served in an action entitled State of North Dakota, Plaintiff, v. J. O. Jensen and Hank Olson, Defendants; that the action was commenced and pending before Hon. H. F. Miller, justice of the peace of Cass county, N. D., who had jurisdiction to issue the warrant of arrest: that the arrest was ordered and directed by the sheriff of Cass county, he having in his possession the warrant of arrest commanding him to arrest Olson to answer the charge of embezzlement.
The defendants specified 26 errors of law and 11 specifications of
