Brooks v. Seevers

• Decision Date: 20 December 1900
• Parties: BROOKS v. SEEVERS.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

112 Iowa 480

84 N.W. 517

BROOKS

v.SEEVERS.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Dec. 20, 1900.

Appeal from district court, Mahaska county; John T. Scott, Judge.

On the 13th day of May, 1898, the plaintiff filed a petition in the district court of Mahaska county against Thomas Seevers and Harve England, containing, among others, the following averments: “Plaintiff states that the defendants are indebted to her in the sum of $5,000, and for cause of action states that on or about the latter part of May, 1896, the plaintiff was at that time living with one Mary Brooks, and that the said Mary Brooks had a case pending in the district court of Mahaska county, Iowa, against the defendant Thomas Seevers for bastardy; that the plaintiff herein was an important witness for the said Mary Brooks; and the plaintiff avers that on or about the time aforesaid the defendants herein conspired and confederated together to cause the arrest of the plaintiff herein, and that the plaintiff herein was arrested through and by the conspiracy so formed, and charged with the crime of attempting to poison one W. H. Roberts, now deceased, by putting arsenic or some other deadly poison in his food. * * * Plaintiff further avers that said charge was made by and through the conspiracy formed by the defendants, and that the poison which was claimed to have been placed in the coffee of the said W. H. Roberts, deceased, was put there by and through the conspiracy of the defendants themselves.” The other averments of the petition are as to malice, want of probable cause, damage, etc. There was an answer in denial, and on the 25th day of April, 1899, by leave of court, an amended and substituted petition was filed, in which Thomas Seevers is alone made defendant, the cause being dismissed as to defendant England. The following are averments of that petition: “Comes now the plaintiff in this cause, and files herein her amended and substituted petition, leave having been granted by the court. The plaintiff states that defendant is indebted to her in the sum of five thousand dollars for malicious prosecution, and for cause of action states that on the 17th day of June, 1896, the defendant maliciously and without probable cause, induced and instigated one W. H. Roberts to file an information against the plaintiff before one H. P. Weaver, a justice of the peace in and for Oskaloosa township, Mahaska county, Iowa, accusing and charging the plaintiff herein with the crime of threatening to commit a public offense, and charging the plaintiff herein with attempting to kill one W. H. Roberts by administering poison to him, the said W. H. Roberts.” The other averments of the substituted petition are not important for the purpose of the question we are to consider. To the substituted petition there was a demurrer upon several grounds, and, among them, that the cause of action therein stated was barred by the statute of limitations. The court sustained the demurrer, and, the plaintiff having elected to stand on her petition, judgment was...