Fine v. Navarre
| Decision Date | 12 February 1895 |
| Citation | 104 Mich. 93,62 N.W. 142 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | FINE v. NAVARRE. |
Error to circuit court, Monroe county; Edward D. Kinne, Judge.
Action by Simon Fine against Robert P. Navarre for malicious prosecution. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error. Affirmed.
William Look and Ira G. Humphrey, for appellant.
Sloman Groesbeck & Robinson (E. R. Gilday, of counsel), for appellee.
The defendant appeals from a judgment rendered against him in circuit court in an action for malicious prosecution. The defendant had made a complaint against the plaintiff for violation of the liquor law, the charge being that he was engaged in the business of selling, etc., spirituous and intoxicating liquors without having paid the tax of $500, or having posted the receipt and notice required by law, which resulted in acquittal upon the trial at circuit. This action was then brought. The counsel for defendant requested the circuit judge to instruct the jury that there was probable cause, and that the defendant must be acquitted, which was refused. We are cited to the case of Huntington v Gault, 81 Mich. 155, 45 N.W. 970, in support of the request. As stated in that case, admitted or undisputed facts make probable cause a question of law for the court. In this case the proof relied upon to sustain the complaint was that the complainant had sent one Barrows to buy whisky, which he did, bringing it to the complainant in a blue bottle; that the next day it was tasted, and found to be whisky. The defendant denied selling any whisky to Barrows but said that he sold wine, and that, while he was not authorized to sell whisky, he had a "beer license." There was a dispute over the question of the sale. If this was the only proof that he was engaged in the business charged, the prosecution would fail if wine was sold instead of whisky; and if it was true, as contended, that this wine was changed to whisky by the defendant after the bottle was brought to him, he knew to a certainty that the plaintiff had not on that occasion sold in contravention of law, and, unless he had some other reason for believing that the plaintiff was engaged in selling spirituous or intoxicating liquors without paying the tax of $500, on posting the receipt and notice, had not a shadow of justification for his complaint. Harris v. Woodford, 98 Mich. 151, 57 N.W. 96. This purchase by Barrows was the transaction upon which the defendant sought to justify his complaint. It was the support of his alleged good faith. It was, therefore, a proper question for the jury.
The plaintiff introduced evidence tending to show that he was a merchant, and that he bought goods on credit in Detroit; that at the time of the prosecution he was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Radzinski v. Doe
...115 Mich. 285, 287, 73 N.W. 238 (1897); Fletcher v. Chicago & N.W. R. Co., 109 Mich. 363, 369, 67 N.W. 330 (1896); Fine v. Navarre, 104 Mich. 93, 94, 62 N.W. 142 (1895); Poupard v. Dumas, 105 Mich. 326, 328, 63 N.W. 301 (1895); Rankin v. Crane, 104 Mich. 6, 9, 61 N.W. 1007 (1895); Govaski v......
-
Friedman v. Dozorc
...cause is a mixed question of law and fact, it should be left to the determination of the jury under proper instruction. Fine v. Navarre (1895), 104 Mich. 93, 62 N.W. 142; Slater v. Walter (1907), 148 Mich. 650, 112 N.W. 682 and Hall v. American Investment Co. (1928), 241 Mich. 349, 217 N.W.......
-
Taft v. J. L. Hudson Co.
...cause is a mixed question of law and fact, it should be left to the determination of the jury under proper instruction. Fine v. Navarre (1895), 104 Mich. 93, 62 N.W. 142; Slater v. Walter (1907), 148 Mich. 650, 112 N.W. 682; and Hall v. American Investment Co. (1928), 241 Mich. 349, 217 N.W......
-
Adkin v. Pillen
...not hesitate to say as a matter of law that there was no probable cause (see Rankin v. Crane, 104 Mich. 6, 61 N.W. 1007; Fine v. Navarre, 104 Mich. 93, 62 N.W. 142; Rogers v. Olds, 117 Mich. 368, 75 N.W. 933), and would also say that from this want of probable cause the jury could infer mal......