Baldwin v. Capitol Steam Laundry Co.

• Decision Date: 11 August 1909
• Citation: 122 N.W. 460,109 Minn. 38
• Parties: BALDWIN v. CAPITOL STEAM LAUNDRY CO.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

109 Minn. 38

122 N.W. 460

BALDWIN

v.CAPITOL STEAM LAUNDRY CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 30, 1909.

On Rehearing, Aug. 11, 1909.

Appeal from District Court, Ramsey County; Olin B. Lewis, Judge.

Action by C. R. Baldwin against the Capitol Steam Laundry Company. Verdict for plaintiff. From an order denying motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Syllabus by the Court

When a full and fair disclosure of all the facts is made to the county attorney, and a criminal complaint is then filed upon his advice, an action for malicious prosecution will not lie.

When the facts are not controverted, the question of probable cause is one of law. P. J. McLaughlin, for appellant.

Morton Barrows, for respondent.

ELLIOTT, J.

In this action for damages the plaintiff, Baldwin, recovered a verdict for $800, and the defendant appealed from an order denying its motion for judgment or for a new trial.

There was some controversy as to whether or not the complaint states a cause of action for false imprisonment or for malicious prosecution, and the submission of the case on the theory that the action is for malicious prosecution is assigned as error. If the action was for false imprisonment only, it is clear that the defendant was entitled to a directed verdict. We proceed, however, to consider the case upon the theory that the court was right in ruling that the complaint states an action for malicious prosecution.

Prior to April, 1907, the plaintiff was in the employ of the defendant under a contract which required him to deliver laundry bundles and make collections therefor. A controversy arose as to whether or not he had turned over all the moneys collected. He was discharged, and thereafter, upon the complaint of the treasurer and manager of the defendant company, a criminal complaint was made against him in the municipal court of the city of St. Paul, charging him with the larceny of a certain amount of money, exceeding $50. The complaint was sworn to by John Keefe, treasurer and manager of the defendant company, and was filed or caused to be filed by the county attorney with the clerk of the court. A warrant was thereupon issued in due form out of, and under the seal of, the court. Under this warrant the plaintiff was arrested, and after a hearing before the municipal court was bound over to appear before the grand jury. Bail was fixed at $100, and in default thereof the plaintiff was committed to the county jail, where he remained for 26 days. The grand jury reported no bill, and the plaintiff was discharged from custody. Thereafter this action was commenced.

Upon the trial the defendant attempted to prove that the plaintiff was in fact guilty of larceny, and almost the entire record is devoted to testimony upon that issue. It is reasonably clear to us, from the examination we have been able to make of the accounts, that after giving the plaintiff credit for all he demanded he was still short in his accounts. But we do not determine the appeal upon that issue. The complaint was made by Mr. Keefe, treasurer and manager of the appellant company. It appears beyond question that he placed the books of account in the hands of the county attorney, and made a full and fair disclosure of all the facts with reference to the matter to him. At the request of the county attorney, Mr. Keefe brought his books and records to the county attorney's office, and they were subjected to examination by the county attorney. The consultation lasted some two or three hours, and thereafter the county attorney prepared the complaint and had Mr. Keefe sign and swear to it. We find nothing in the record which suggests that Mr. Keefe overstated anything to the county attorney, or that he did not fully and truly state all the facts within his knowledge, or which he had reason to believe existed. On cross-examination Mr. Keefe testified as follows: ‘Q. Now, did the county attorney accept your statement as to the amount of shortage, or did he himself go through the books, to balance Mr. Baldwin's accounts and himself determine the amount he was short on the books? A. He went through the books. Q. Made a careful examination? A. Yes; took quite a while. Q. Yes, and drew his own conclusions from them. That is true, is it? A. Yes, sir; yes, sir. Q. Now, this conversation to which you have testified, and which you are testifying about now, was it with whom? A. Mr. Ryan (assistant county attorney). Q. And he is the one on whose advice you acted? A. Yes, sir. Q. He is the one whom you say examined the records and arrived at his own results? A. Yes, sir. Q. And conclusions? A. Yes, sir. Q. About how long and Mr. Ryan in making his examination of the books and reaching his own conclusions as to the amount of Mr. Baldwin's shortage? A. I should judge about two or three hours. I know I was up there about that time, anyhow.’

This testimony is not challenged....