Griffith v. Slinkard

Citation44 N.E. 1001, 146 Ind. 117
Case DateOctober 16, 1896
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

146 Ind. 117
44 N.E. 1001

GRIFFITH
v.
SLINKARD.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Oct. 16, 1896.


Appeal from circuit court, Greene county; William W. Moffett, Judge.

Action by George I. Griffith against William L. Slinkard. From an order sustaining a demurrer to the complaint, the plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.


Davis & Moffett and Cavins & Cavins, for appellant. Wm. L. Slinkard and Emerson Short, for appellee.

McCABE, J.

The circuit court sustained a several demurrer to each of the two paragraphs of the complaint, and, the plaintiff (the appellant) refusing to amend, and electing to stand upon his complaint, the defendant recovered judgment, upon the demurrer, that the plaintiff take nothing by his complaint. The rulings upon said demurrer are called in question by the assignment of errors.

The substance of the complaint is as follows: “First paragraph. Plaintiff, for amended complaint, complains of the defendant, and says that on October 4th, 1893, during the September term of the Greene circuit court, while a grand jury of said county was in session inquiring into crimes, etc., the defendant was the regularly elected and qualified prosecuting attorney for the 14th judicial circuit of said state, and for said county of Greene, the same being one of the counties of said circuit; that during said session of said grand jury it became their duty to inquire into a charge of crime presented them against one John Mullins for having feloniously and purposely set fire to and burned a certain barn, of the value of $400, the property of said Mullins, the said property being insured by the Indiana Underwriters Insurance Company in the sum of $400, with intent to cheat and defraud said insurance company; that said grand jury voted and decided to present an indictment against said Mullins in due form charging him with said crime; that said Slinkard, acting as prosecuting attorney, but maliciously, wrongfully, and willfully intending to injure plaintiff, represented to said grand jury that he was able to present evidence that would show probable cause for and justify an indictment against said plaintiff for said crime jointly with said Mullins; that said grand jury investigated and heard said pretended evidence; that there was no evidence whatever against this plaintiff in any way whatsoever tending to connect said plaintiff with the commission of said crime, and that he in fact was not guilty thereof nor of complicity therein; that said grand jury thereupon voted, decided, and determined not to present or return any indictment against said Griffith, plaintiff herein, charging him with said crime, of which action and determination of said grand jury said defendant at the time well knew; that thereupon said grand jury directed said Slinkard to prepare an indictment against said Mullins, charging him with said crime, but did not direct him to include this plaintiff in said indictment; that said indictment against said Mullins, charging him with said crime, was prepared by said Slinkard, and by said grand jury returned into open court; but that said defendant, well knowing all the foregoing action and determination and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
81 practice notes
  • Fogle v. Sokol, No. 19-1066
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • April 20, 2020
    ...Immunity , 2005 BYU L. Rev. 53, 113–16 (2005) (citing Parker v. Huntington , 68 Mass. 124 (Mass. 1854) ; Griffith v. Slinkard , 146 Ind. 117, 44 N.E. 1001 (1896) ); see also Kalina , 522 U.S. at 123–24, 118 S.Ct. 502 (acknowledging prosecutorial immunity only relies "in part on common-law p......
  • Cooper v. O'CONNOR, No. 6956.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • June 27, 1938
    ...note 13 (special assistant to the Attorney General); Smith v. Parman, 101 Kan. 115, 165 P. 663, L.R.A. 1917F, 698; Griffith v. Slinkard, 146 Ind. 117, 44 N.E. 1001 (prosecuting attorneys). 17 Sidener v. Russell, 34 Ill.App. 446; Griffith v. Slinkard, supra note 16; Engelke v. Chouteau, 98 M......
  • McGhee v. Pottawattamie County, Ia, No. 4:05-cv-00255.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa
    • February 23, 2007
    ...should be extended to prosecutors in the context of § 1983 actions. Imbler, 424 U.S. at 421-22, 96 S.Ct. 984 (citing Griffith v. Slinkard, 146 Ind. 117, 44 N.E. 1001 (1896) (finding that a prosecutor without probable cause who added a name to a grand jury true bill after the grand jurors re......
  • AAFCO Heating & Air Conditioning Co. v. Northwest Publications, Inc., No. 3--1073A133
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • December 30, 1974
    ...attaches to judges, attorneys, parties and witnesses in connection with a judicial proceeding. See, e.g., Griffith v. Slinkard (1896), 146 Ind. 117, 44 N.E. 1001. The dissemination of news by the communications media has traditionally been safeguarded by two qualified or conditional privile......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
80 cases
  • Fogle v. Sokol, No. 19-1066
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • April 20, 2020
    ...Immunity , 2005 BYU L. Rev. 53, 113–16 (2005) (citing Parker v. Huntington , 68 Mass. 124 (Mass. 1854) ; Griffith v. Slinkard , 146 Ind. 117, 44 N.E. 1001 (1896) ); see also Kalina , 522 U.S. at 123–24, 118 S.Ct. 502 (acknowledging prosecutorial immunity only relies "in part on common-law p......
  • Cooper v. O'CONNOR, No. 6956.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • June 27, 1938
    ...note 13 (special assistant to the Attorney General); Smith v. Parman, 101 Kan. 115, 165 P. 663, L.R.A. 1917F, 698; Griffith v. Slinkard, 146 Ind. 117, 44 N.E. 1001 (prosecuting attorneys). 17 Sidener v. Russell, 34 Ill.App. 446; Griffith v. Slinkard, supra note 16; Engelke v. Chouteau, 98 M......
  • McGhee v. Pottawattamie County, Ia, No. 4:05-cv-00255.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa
    • February 23, 2007
    ...should be extended to prosecutors in the context of § 1983 actions. Imbler, 424 U.S. at 421-22, 96 S.Ct. 984 (citing Griffith v. Slinkard, 146 Ind. 117, 44 N.E. 1001 (1896) (finding that a prosecutor without probable cause who added a name to a grand jury true bill after the grand jurors re......
  • AAFCO Heating & Air Conditioning Co. v. Northwest Publications, Inc., No. 3--1073A133
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • December 30, 1974
    ...attaches to judges, attorneys, parties and witnesses in connection with a judicial proceeding. See, e.g., Griffith v. Slinkard (1896), 146 Ind. 117, 44 N.E. 1001. The dissemination of news by the communications media has traditionally been safeguarded by two qualified or conditional privile......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT