Brown v. Martin

• Decision Date: 11 September 1918
• Docket Number: (No. 22.)
• Citation: 96 S.E. 642
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: BROWN . v. MARTIN.

96 S.E. 642

BROWN .

v.MARTIN.

(No. 22.)

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Sept. 11, 1918.

Appeal from Superior Court, Beaufort County; Connor, Judge.

Action by Hezekiah Brown against D. U. Martin. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. No error.

This is an action to recover damages for malicious prosecution; the charge against the plaintiff in the criminal prosecution being that he stole certain money, the property of the defendant in this action, or of the corporation of which the defendant was president. At the conclusion of the evidence the defendant moved for judgment of nonsuit, on the ground that there was no evidence connecting him with the criminal prosecution. The motion was overruled, and the defendant excepted.

On the issue of damages his honor, among other things, instructed the jury as follows:

"I instruct you that, if you find that the conduct of the defendant in respect to this arrest and prosecution was reckless, wanton, and malicious, that it was without regard to the rights of the plaintiff, then, gentlemen, it is within your discretion to include in your answer to the fourth issue a sum of money which you may deem proper as smart money or as punitive damages; you are not required by the law, notwithstanding what your finding as to the facts may be, to include any punitive damages, but the whole matter, as to whether or not you shall include punitive damages, is left to your discretion, to your sound judgment, provided you shall find that the conduct of the defendant was reckless, wanton, and malicious."

The defendant excepted to this part of the charge, upon the ground that there was no sufficient evidence to justify submitting the question of punitive damages to the jury.

The jury returned the following verdict:

(1) Did the defendant cause the arrest and prosecution of the plaintiff, as alleged? Answer: Yes.

(2) If so, was the arrest without probable cause? Answer: Yes.

(3) If so, was the arrest and prosecution malicious? Answer: Yes.

(4) What amount if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover of the defendant? Answer: $300.

Judgment was entered upon the verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed.

John G. Tooly, of Belhaven, and Harry McMullan, of Washington, N, C., for appellant.

Ward & Grimes, of Washington, N. C., for appellee.

ALLEN, J. [1] The evidence connecting the defendant with the criminal prosecutionis ample. The recorder, W. H. Hooker, testified:

"I issued a warrant for Hezekiah Brown, charging him with taking some money of Mr. D. U. Martin. Mr. Martin was the prosecutor in that warrant, Mr. Thompson was attorney for him."

And Mr. Thompson testified:

"Mr. Martin told me to investigate the matter and see what was in it. I then went and talked to one Mr. Brown and Mr. Bonner and Mr. Harmon. I...