Good v. French
| Decision Date | 18 June 1874 |
| Citation | 115 Mass. 201 |
| Parties | John A. Good v. George W. French |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Suffolk. Tort for malicious prosecution and for slander. Trial in the Superior Court before Rockwell, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions in substance as follows:
It appeared that the plaintiff had bought a lot of flour in the name of one Cutler, of the firm of which the defendant was a member; that he had not authority to use Cutler's name that the flour was not paid for, and that the defendant made a complaint before the Municipal Court of the city of Boston and caused the plaintiff to be arrested for obtaining the flour by false pretences, and that he was discharged. To prove the proceedings in the Municipal Court, the plaintiff offered in evidence a paper purporting to be a copy of the record of the proceedings in that court. The assistant clerk of that court who made the copy, testified that the record of the case had never been extended, and that the only record in the office was the docket. The defendant's counsel objected to the admission of the copy, but it was admitted. The plaintiff then caused the docket to be produced and the entries of the same were put in, by which it appeared that the plaintiff was arrested on the complaint of the defendant for obtaining goods by false pretences, and was discharged. But the plaintiff contended, and relied on the copy of the record as prima facie proof, that the defendant had caused the arrest of the plaintiff without probable cause, and so argued to the jury; and the copy went to the jury, and the substance was stated to them.
The plaintiff on his direct examination testified to facts tending to show that he was in good credit, and had funds in the hands of a third person sufficient to pay for the flour and that there was a practice among flour dealers to buy flour in the name of other persons, and that the reason of this practice was to conceal the names of the actual purchasers, and cover up any speculation in which the actual purchaser might be engaged. To the admission of this evidence the defendant objected.
The plaintiff on cross-examination admitted that he used the name of Cutler in the purchase of the flour because he feared that his credit would be called in question if he attempted to buy in his own name; and that he did not want the defendant to understand that credit for the flour was to be given to him.
At the conclusion of the plaintiff's case the defendant requested the court to order a verdict for the defendant, and the same request was made when the testimony on both sides was put in. These requests were refused.
The evidence on the counts in slander was conflicting, and these counts were not relied upon.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for five hundred dollars, and in answer to a question of the court, as to what count the verdict was found on, replied that it was a general verdict but that the jury dwelt upon the view that it seemed to them from the evidence that the defendant caused the prosecution to be instituted for private motives, and not on public considerations.
The defendant excepted to the admission of the above evidence and to the refusal of the court to direct a verdict for the defendant.
Exceptions sustained.
W. W Warren, for the defendant.
J. L. Eldridge, for the plaintiff.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wynne v. Rosen
...the want of probable cause. "The want of probable cause is a vital and indispensable element in the plaintiff's case." Good v. French, 115 Mass. 201, 203 (1874). The want of probable cause is so essential that it "must be affirmatively proved, and may not be inferred from the existence of m......
-
Higgins v. Pratt
...not the actual state of things, governs. Bacon v. Towne, supra, 4 Cush. at page 239;Kidder v. Parkhurst, 3 Allen 393, 396;Good v. French, 115 Mass. 201, 204. ‘His duty is not to ascertain whether there is a defence, but whether there is reasonable and probable cause for a prosecution.’ Hern......
-
Taylor v. Rice
...probable cause will not be inferred from even express malice, Wheeler v. Nesbitt, 24 How. 544; but must be proved by plaintiff. Good v. French, 115 Mass. 201; Levy Brannan, 39 Cal. 485. (3) What Amounts to: It is enough if the prosecutor acted with such a degree of impartiality, reasonablen......
-
Higgins v. Pratt
... ... found, in addition to the facts predicated in the request, ... that the defendant acted in good faith and made a full and ... honest disclosure to counsel of all the material facts within ... his knowledge and belief ... governs. Bacon v. Towne, supra, 239. Kidder v. Parkhurst, 3 ... Allen, 393, 396. Good v. French, 115 Mass. 201 , ... 204. "His duty is not to ascertain whether there is a ... defence, but whether there is reasonable and probable cause ... ...