Cramer v. Barmon
| Decision Date | 03 May 1909 |
| Citation | 118 S.W. 1179,136 Mo.App. 673 |
| Parties | JACOB CRAMER, Respondent, v. WILLIAM BARMON, Appellant |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court.--Hon. John G. Park, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Judgment affirmed.
Ringolsky & White for appellant.
(1) The court erred in giving instruction number one, of its own motion. (2) Our contention is that there is nothing in the record, either direct or circumstantial, in the slightest degree, tending to prove that the defendant, Barmon, did not believe that the plaintiff was guilty of having received stolen property, knowing the same to have been stolen.
Leon Block and Frank P. Sebree for respondent.
(1) The appellant's chief contention on this appeal is that the evidence is not sufficient to justify a verdict against him. Upon this question it is only necessary to call attention to some of the facts which there was abundant evidence tending to prove, in order to show that appellant's position is untenable. First: The plaintiff's long and established excellent reputation with people generally, the wholesale houses and the police department; and Lurie's former good reputation, both of which were well known to defendant. Second: The reputation of plaintiff as an honest man, spoken of by Detective Sparks in defendant's presence at plaintiff's store, when they were taking the goods from plaintiff, and the fact that plaintiff made no effort at concealment of the goods or that he had bought them, and other goods on other occasions, from Lurie. Third Defendant's offer to not prosecute plaintiff, if plaintiff would pay him five hundred dollars. Fourth Defendant's statement to Lurie's brother that he did not care to prosecute Lurie, but he intended to make plaintiff pay and would hold Lurie as a menace to plaintiff. Fifth: His concealment of these same facts from the prosecutor, Mr. Johnson, and also at first his concealment of the claim that the suits were worth ten dollars each. (2) The evidence of defendant's malicious prosecution of plaintiff without probale cause was abundant, and its weight was entirely sufficient to cause two juries to return verdicts in plaintiff's favor. Carp v. Insurance Co., 203 Mo. 295; Stubbs v. Mulholland, 168 Mo 47; Butcher v. Hoffman, 99 Mo.App. 239.
This action is for malicious prosecution on a charge of receiving stolen goods, in which plaintiff recovered judgment in the trial court. It appears that the parties each owned a clothing store in the north part of Kansas City, Mo.; that they were formerly friends of the same nationality. This is the second appeal of the case. The first is reported in 126 Mo.App. 54, to which we refer for a full history of the matters leading up to the institution of the action and upon which it is founded. The second trial, as did the first, resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff. The principal objections urged against the judgment, in a general way, amount to an attack upon the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict.
Objections are particularized in criticism of an instruction given by the court of its own motion, submitting the hypothesis of defendant having prosecuted plaintiff without believing him to be guilty, or by false...
To continue reading
Request your trial