Page images
PDF
EPUB

to act with the same impartiality and absence of prejudice in drawing his *conclusions as to the guilt of the [*183] accused that a person entirely disinterested would deli. berately do, any more than a person assaulted could be expected to judge of his danger with the like coolness and impartiality.' And all that can be required of him is that he shall act as a reasonable and prudent man would be likely to act under like circumstances."

The test of probable cause is to be applied as of the time when the action complained of was taken; and if upon the facts then known the party had no probable cause for action, it will be no

to him that facts came to his knowledge afterwards that might have constituted a justification had he been aware of them.' Neither is he justified if he knew the facts, but did not believe them.

Advice of Counsel. It may perhaps turn ont that the complainant, instead of relying upon his own judgment, has taken the advice of counsel learned in the law and acted upon that. This should be safer and more reliable than his own judgment,

Brown, 28 Iowa, 37; 8. C. 4 Am. Rep. 151; Gallaway o. Burr, 32 Mich. 332; Gee o. Patterson, 63 Me. 49. There sbould be such a state of facts and circumstances as would induce men of ordinary prudence and conscience to believe the charge to be true. Driggs e. Burton, 44 Vt. 124. See, further, Stone o. Stevens, 12 Conn. 219; Jacks o. Stimpson, 13 Ill. 791; Lawrence o. Lanning, 4 Iod, 194; Bank of British N. A. 0. Strong, 1 App. Cas., Priv. Coun. 307; S. C. 16 Moak, 24; Hicks o. Faulkner, L. R. 8 Q. B. D. 167; Johns o. Marsh, 52 Md. 323; Johnson 0. Miller, 69 Ia. 562; Jordan o. Ala. &c. R. R. Co., 81 Ala. 220; Forbes o. Hagman, 75 Va. 168; Casey •. Sevatson, 30 Minn. 616; Spalding 0. Lowe, 56 Mich. 366; Chapman o. Duvn, Id. 31; King 0. Colvin, 11 R. I. 582; Planter's Ins. Co. o. Williams, 60 Miss. 916; Krulevitz o. Eastern R. R., 140 Mass. 573;

Vansickle 0. Brown, 68 Mo. 627; Dwain o. Discalso, 66 Cal. 415; Bitting o. Ten Eyck, 82 Ind, 421.

· Cole o. Curtis, 16 Minn. 182. Carter o. Sutherland, 52 Mich. 597.

• Bourne 0. Stout, 62 Ill. 261.

• Delegal o. Highley, 3 Bing. (N.C.) 950; Bell o. Pearcy, 5 Ired. 83; John. 80n 0. Chambers, 10 Ired. (N. C.) L. 287; Galloway o. Stewart, 49 Ind. 156; S. C. 19 Am. Rep. 677; Skidmore o. Bricker, 77 Ill. 164; Josselyn o. McAllister, 25 Mich 45; Foshay o. Ferguson, 2 Denio, 617. See Sims o. M'Lendon, 3 Strob. 557.

4 See cases cited in last note; also Bigelow, Lead. Cas. on Torts, 198, 200. Although suspicious circum. stances may seem to afford probable cause the prosecutor is liable if he knows the accused is innocent, or does not believe him guilty. Woodworth o. Mills, 61 Wis. 44; Plummer 0. Johnson, 35 N. W. Rep. 334 (Wis.)

[ocr errors]

not only because it is the advice of one who can view the facts calmly and dispassionately, but because he is capable of judging of the facts in their legal bearings. A prudent man is therefore expected to take such advice; and when he does so and places all the facts before his counsel, and acts upon his opinion, proof of the fact makes out a case of probable cause,' provided the disclosure appears to have been full and fair, and not to have with

held any of the material facts. But the advice must be [*184] that of *a person accepted and licensed by the courts as

one learned in the law and competent to be adviser to clients and to the court; and if one chooses to accept and rely upon the opinion and advice of a justice of the peace or other layman, he may do so in aid of his own judgment, but it cannot

[ocr errors]

* Ravenga o. Mackintosh, 2 B. & C. 693; Stone v. Swift, 4 Pick. 389; Walter o. Sample, 25 Peon. St. 275; Hall 0. Suydam, 6 Barb. 83; Olmstead o. Partridge, 16 Gray, 381; Ames o. Sni. der, 69 Ill. 376; Wicker 0. Hotchkiss, 62 Ill. 107; 8. C. 14 Am. Rep. 75; Burgett o. Burgett, 43 Ind. 78; Stew. art v. Sonneborn, 98 U. 8. 187; St. Johnsbury, &c. Co. 0. Hunt, 59 Vt. 294; Sharpe o. Johnston, 76 Mo. 660; Jones v. Jones, 71 Cal. 89; Allen o. Codman, 139 Mass. 136; Jordan 0. Ala., &c. R. R. Co., 81 Ala. 220. But it is also held that such advice bears on the question of malice, not probable cause. Wright 0. Hanna, 98 Ind. 217; Brewer v. Jacobs, 22 Fed. Rep. 217; Lemay v. Williams, 32 Ark. 166; Ramsey 0. Arroit, 64 Tex. 320.

2 Ash 0. Marlow, 20 Ohio, 119; Walter o. Sample, 25 Penn. St. 275; Kimmel o. Henry, 64 Ill. 505; Sharp 0. Johnston, 59 Mo. 557; Cooper o. Utterbach, 37 Md. 282; Bliss v. Wyman, 7 Cal. 257; Anderson o. Friend, 85 Ill. 135; Mesher 0. Iddings, 34 N. W. Rep. 328 (Ia.); Wild v. Odell, 56 Cal. 136. In Ravenga 0. Mackintosh, 2 Barn. & Cress. 692, 698, it is said to be “a question for the jury whether he acted bone fide on the opin.

ion, believing that he had & cause of action.” And on this point, see Rogs o. Innis, 26 Ill. 259, 279; Center 0. Spring, 2 Iowa, 393; Eastman t. Keasor, 44 N. H. 518; Potter o. Seale, 8 Cal. 217; Josselyn o. McAllister, 23 Mich. 300; Williams 0. Vanmeter, 8 Mo. 339; Hill 0. Palm, 38 Mo. 13. The mere fact of getting advice is not conclusive in favor of the defendant. Lytton o. Baird, 95 Ind. 349; Hogg e. Pinckney, 16 S. C. 387; Lemay e. Williams, 32 Ark, 166; Ramsey e. Arrott, 64 Tex. 320. The advice must be honestly given and acted on in good faith. Allen o. Codman, 139 Mass. 136; Jordan o. Ala. &c. RR Co., 81 Ala. 220; Parkhurst o. Masteller, 57 Ia. 474; Roy u. Goings, 112 Il. 656. No protection if sought as a means of covering malice. McCarthy 0. Kitchen, 59 Ind. 500. The attorn. ey must not be interested in the subject matter.

White o. Carr, 71 Me. 555. All facts known, or which could, with reasonable diligence, have been ascertained, must be dis. closed. Motes o. Bates, 80 Ala. 382; Roy o. Goings, 112 III, 656; White e. Carr, 71 Me. 655. Enough, if disclosure is of all facts known. Johnson o. Miller, 69 Ia. 562.

afford him any protection.' Moreover, when he places himself under the guidance of counsel, if facts subsequently come to his knowledge which seem to be important, it is his duty to commanieate these to counsel, if he expects to rely upon his advice as a justification in the steps subsequently taken.'

Proof of Want of Probable Cause. The burden of proof to show a want of probable cause is upon the plaintiff.' In other words, the want of probable cause will not be inferred from the mere failure of the prosecution. Nor does malice establish a want of probable cause, because, as is well said in one case, a person actuated by the plainest malice may nevertheless have a justifiable reason for prosecution;s and, indeed, the offense itself, or the belief in its having been committed, is likely to excite malice. An acquittal and discharge by a magistrate having power to bind over, is evidence of want of probable cause, as is

cases cited ; Good 0. French, 115 Mass. 201; Levy o. Brannan, 39 Cal. 485; Wilkinson o. Arnold, 11 Ind. 45; Frost o. Holland ,75 Me. 108; Andersou o. Friend, 85 III. 135.

"Olmstead o. Partridge, 16 Gray, 381; Beal 0. Robeson, 8 Ired. 276; Straus e. Young, 36 Md. 246; Burgett o. Burgett, 43 Ind. 78; Stanton 6. Hart, 27 Mich. 539; Murphy 0. Larson, 77 II). 172; Sutton o. McCon. Dell, 46 Wis. 269; Brobst o. Ruff, 100 Penn. St. 91; Gee o. Culver, 12 Oreg. 228; Colbert 0. Hicks, 5 Ont. App. 571; McCullough o. Rice, 59 Ind. 580; Coleman o. Heurich, 2 Mackey 189; Stewart o. Sonneborn, 99 U. S. 187.

* Cole o. Curtis, 16 Minn. 182; Ash c. Marlow, 20 Ohio, 119.

5 TINDALL, Ch. J., in Williams 0. Taylor, 6 Bing. 183, 186. And, see, Heyne o. Blair, 62 N. Y. 19, 22; Fo. shay o. Ferguson, 2 Denio, 617; Skid. more o. Bricker, 77 Ill. 164; Krug v. Ward, 77 III. 603; Chapman v. Caw. rey, 50 Ill. 512; Caperson v. Sproule, 39 Mo. 39; Hall v. Hawkins, 5 Humph. 357; Bell 0. Pearcy, 5 Ired. 83; Center o. Spring, 2 Clarke (Iowa), 393; Cloon v. Gerry, 13 Gray, 201; Kidder 0. Parkhurst, 3 Allen, 393; Wade o. Walden, 23 Ill. 425: Travis v. Smith, 1 Penn. St. 234; Stewart v. Sonpeborn, 98 U. S. 187; Sharpe v. Johnston, 76 Mo. 660; Flickinger 0. Wagner, 46 Md. 580; Bitting v. TenEyck, 82 Iod. 421; Meysenberg o. Engelke, 18 Mo. App. 346.

" See on the burden of proof, Abrath e Northeastern Ry Co. L. R. 11 Q. B. D. 440: Legallee o. Blaisdell, 134 Mass. 473; McFarland o. Washburn, 14 III. App. 369; Sutton o. Anderson, 103 Pern. St. 151; Bernar o, Dunlap, 94 Penn. St. 329. As to what is evidence of want of probable cause, Krulevitz e. Eastern R. R., 143 Mass. 228.

• Boyd o. Cross, 35 Md. 194, and

the ignoring of a bill by a grand jury.' But neither of these is

conclusive.' [*185] *If the defendant is convicted in the first instance and

appeals, and is acquitted in the appellate court, the conviction below is conclusive of probable cause.'

Malice. The burden of proving that the prosecution was malicious is also upon the plaintiff. If a want of probable cause is shown, malice may be inferred; but the deduction is not a necessary one, and the mere discontinuance of a criminal prosecu

· Mitchinson o. Cross, 58 III. 366; Cooper o. Utterbach, 37 Md. 282; Israel o. Brooks, 23 Ill. 575; Sappington v. Watson, 50 Mo. 83; Frost 0. Holland, 75 Me. 108; Bornholdt o. Souillard, 36 La. Ann. 103; Sharpe o. Johnston, 76 Mo. 660. In Apgar o. Woolston, 43 N. J. L. 57, it is held that the failure of the grand jury to indict is not prima facie evidence of want of probable cause; but the finding of an indictment is prima facie evidence of probable cause. Peck o. Chouteau, 91 Mo. 138, Ricord o. Centr. Pac. &c. Co., 15 Nev. 167; contra, Motes o. Bates, 80 Ala. 382; so is recognizing to appear after waiver of examination. Vansickle o. Brown, 63 Mo. 627; so is the disagreement of the jury on first trial. Johnson o. Miller, 63 Ia. 529.

2 Parkhurst o. Masteller, 57 Ia. 474; Barber o. Gould, 20 Hun, 446; Sharpe 0. Johnston, 76 Mo. 660; Raleigh v. Cook, 60 Tex. 438; Plassan 0. La. Lottery Co., 34 La. Ann. 246; Hale o. Boylen, 22 W. Va. 234.

• Griffs o. Sellars, 4 Dev. & Bat. 176; Whitney o. Peckham, 15 Mass. 242; Payson 0. Caswell, 22 Me. 212; Witham v. Gowen, 14 Me. 362. Unless the conviction was procured by fraud. Welch o. Boston, etc., R. R. Co., 14 R. I. 609; Phillips o. Kalama. zoo, 53 Mich. 33; Womack o. Circle, 32 Gratt. 324. See Labar 0. Crane,

49 Mich. 561. A conviction, upre. versed, if based on fraud, will not be conclusive of probable cause. Olson 0. Neal, 63 Ia. 214. Otherwise if un. just but not fraudulent. Severance v. Judkins, 73 Me. 376. Nor is the binding over by a magistrate. Diemer v. Hormer, 17 Pac. Rep. 205.

• Dietz o. Langfitt, 63 Penn. St. 234; Purcell 0. McNamara, 9 East. 361; Savil o. Roberts, 1 Salk. 14, 15; Willans o. Taylor, 6 Bing. 183; McKnown 0. Hunter, 30 N. Y. 625; Flickinger o. Wagner, 46 Md. 581.

5 Pangburn o. Bull, 1 Wend. 345; Merriam o. Mitchell, 13 Me. 439; Fuller v. Glidden, 68 Me. 559; Dietz e. Langfitt, 63 Penn. St. 234; Gilliford 0. Windel, 108 Penn. St. 142; Mowry t. Whipple, 8 R. I. 360; Cooper o. C'tterbach, 37 Md. 282; Harpham e. Whitney, 77 Ill. 32; Roy o. Goings, 112 III. 656; Holliday o. Sterling, 62 Mo. 321; Vansickle 0, Brown, 68 Mo. 627; Ewing o. Sanford, 19 Ala. 605; Harkrader o. Moore, 44 Cal. 144; Paukett 0. Livermore, 5 Clarke (Iowa), 277; Strickler o. Greer, 95 Ind. 596; Heap 0. Parrish, 104 Ind, 36; Block o. Meyers, 33 La. Ann. 776; Bob. sin o, Kingsbury, 138 Mass. 538; Falvey o. Faxon, 143 Mass. 284; Carson 0. Edgeworth, 43 Mich. 241; Hoyt e. Fallett, 65 Tex. 550; Wagstaff t. Sehippel, 27 Kan. 450; Stewart e. Sonneborn, 98 U. S. 187; Johnson

[ocr errors]

a

tion, or the acquittal of the accused, will establish for the purposes of this suit neither malice nor want of probable cause.' But if an arrest is made in a civil suit which is afterward voluntarily discontinued, the discontinuance has been held to furnish prima facie evidence of a want of probable cause. Legal malice is made out by showing that the proceeding was instituted from any improper or wrongful motive, and it is not essential that actual malevolence or corrupt design be shown. Sometimes the accompanying circumstances show the bad motive very clearly, as for instance, where an arrest on an unfounded criminal charge was made use of to compel the surrender of securities to which both parties were equally entitled. This is a sort of malice sufficiently common to need special mention.

*What is an end of the Proceeding. The termination [*186] of the proceeding must, in general, be by a final acquittal.' It is not enough that the parties in a case which they might

. Ebberts, 6 Sawy. 538; Murphy o. Bartlett o. Hawley, 37 N, W. Rep. Hobbs, 7 Cal. 541; Casebeer o. Rice, 580 (Minn). But whether the facts 18 Neb. 203.

found are such as to warrant the inWillans o. Taylor, 6 Bing. 183; ference of malice is for the court. Yocum. o Polly, 1 B. Mon. 358; Skid- Sharpe 0. Johnston, 76 Mo. 660. more o. Bricker, 77 III. 164; Kidder When the court holds that there is a e. Parkhurst, 3 Allen, 393; Bitting want of probable cause there is evi

. Ten Eyck, 82 Ind. 421, and cases p. dence of malice for the jury. When 213 n. 5; Spear o. Hiles, 67 Wis. 350; such want is the only evidence of Hamilton o. Smith, 39 Mich. 222; malice the jury are not bound by the Johos e. Marsh, 52 Md. 323; Jordan holding of the court to find malice. 6. Ala., etc., Co., 81 Ala. 220; Gee o. As evidence of malice the question of Culver, 13 Oreg. 598. Mere ill-will probable cause is wholly for the jury. without an act intended to injure is Hicks o. Faulkner, L. R. 8 Q. B. D. Dot malice. Peck o. Chouteau, 91 167; Quartz Hill Co., 0. Eyre, L. R. Mo. 138.

11 Q. B. D. 674. · Burbans o. Sanford, 19 Wend. - Kimball v. Bates, 50 Me. 308. See 417; Nicholson o. Coghill, 4 B. & C. Willans o. Taylor, 6 Biog. 183; Brown 21; Green o. Cochran, 43 Iowa, 544. 0. Randall, 36 Conn. 56; Krug o.

• Page o. Cushing, 38 Me. 523; Bar- Ward, 77 Ill. 603; Prough v. Entriken, Top e. Mason, 31 Vt. 189; Harpham 11 Penn, St. 81; Schmidt v. Weid. c. Whitney, 77 Ill. 32. The jury are man, 63 Penn, St. 173. Or to en. the exclusive judges of malice. force payment of a debt. Munds o. Dupont, 3 Wash. C. C. 31; Langworthy, 13 Neb. 492. Center 0. Spring, 2 Clarke (Iowa), 6 Bacon o. Towne, 4 Cush. 217 ; 393; Mitchel o. Jenkins, 5 B. & A. Boyd o. Cross, 35 Md. 194; Kirkpat687; Stewart v. Sonneborn, 98 U. S. rick v. Kirkpatrick, 39 Penn. St. 288; 187; Vinal o. Core, 18 W. Va. 1; Williams o. Woodhouse, 3 Dev. (N.

Ross 0.

« PreviousContinue »