Davis v. Sanders

• Decision Date: 24 April 1902
• Parties: DAVIS v. SANDERS. [1]
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

32 So. 499

133 Ala. 275

DAVIS v. SANDERS. ^[1]

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 24, 1902

Appeal from city court of Birmingham; W. W. Wilkerson, Judge.

Action by Tom Davis against Edward Sanders. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

The complaint contained two counts, which were as follows "First count. The plaintiff claims of the defendant $3,000 damages for maliciously, and without probable cause therefor, causing the plaintiff to be arrested and imprisoned on the charge of larceny for, to wit, 10 days, on, to wit the 1st day of December, 1899. Second count. The plaintiff claims of the defendant $3,000 damages for maliciously, and without probable cause therefor, causing the plaintiff to be arrested and imprisoned on the charge of larceny for, to wit ten days, on, to wit, the 1st day of December, 1899; and plaintiff avers that he was, by reason of such arrest confined in the city prison of Birmingham for ten days; that said city prison was in a filthy, uncomfortable, and unhealthy condition; that same was overcrowded; and that the plaintiff was exposed while in said prison to smallpox, and confined in said prison where persons were confined who had smallpox; and was deprived of the privilege of making bond; wherefore plaintiff brings this suit." The second count was subsequently amended by adding thereto the following words: "Plaintiff avers that said charge, before the commencement of this action, has been judicially investigated, and said prosecution ended, and the plaintiff discharged." The plaintiff introduced evidence tending to show that, upon the complaint of the defendant, he was arrested upon a charge of larceny of a watch; that he was tried in the inferior criminal court of the city of Birmingham, and discharged. The defendant introduced evidence tending to show that there was probable cause for him to believe that the plaintiff was guilty of the larceny of the watch as charged. The plaintiff introduced in evidence the testimony of several witnesses that they knew the plaintiff's character, and that it was good. To the introduction of these witnesses, the defendant separately objected upon the grounds that such evidence was immaterial, irrelevant, and illegal, and that the character of the plaintiff was not involved in the issue in this case. The court overruled the objection, and the defendant duly excepted. Among the charges requested by the defendant, to the refusal to give each of which the defendant separately excepted, was the following: "The jury in this case cannot, under the evidence, find any verdict against the defendant for malicious prosecution." There were verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, assessing his damages at $500. The defendant appeals, and assigns as error the several rulings of the trial court to which exceptions were reserved.

H. K. White and John Loudon, for appellant.

B. M. Allen, for appellee.

DOWDELL J.

The...