Hagerman v. Sutherland

• Decision Date: 11 October 1894
• Citation: 27 S.W. 982
• Parties: HAGERMAN v. SUTHERLAND.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

27 S.W. 982

HAGERMAN v. SUTHERLAND.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

October 11, 1894

Appeal from circuit court, Daviess county.

"Not to be officially reported."

Action by O. E. Hagerman against J. W. Sutherland, justice of the peace, for malicious prosecution. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Hill &amp Hill, for appellant.

Carico & Miller, for appellee.

PRYOR J.

This is an action for malicious prosecution, in which the principal cause of complaint is that the magistrate, having complete jurisdiction over the case he was called on to hear, without probable cause, and with impure and corrupt motives, held the appellant for trial in the circuit court for forgery, or until the grand jury, then in session, could investigate the charge. The appellant, on a proper affidavit presented to the magistrate, was charged with the crime of forgery, and a warrant demanded for his arrest. The justice issued the warrant, the appellee was arrested, and the grand jury investigating the case refused to find an indictment. The appellant now maintains the appellee should have discharged him, as there was not sufficient evidence to hold him over for further trial. There is no pretense in this case that the justice acted without jurisdiction, but, on the contrary, it was his duty to hear the evidence, and from it determine whether or not reasonable grounds existed for an investigation by the grand jury. He was compelled under the law to decide the case upon the evidence before him, and although rendering an erroneous judgment, no liability exists, unless it appears that he acted from corrupt motives and the facts, when he had the jurisdiction to try the case showing such corrupt motives, should be alleged, that the judge or justice may know the particular fact or facts upon which the charge of corruption is based. It was his duty to decide the case, and, having rendered the opinion, the mere allegation that it was without probable cause, and corrupt is not sufficient to require an answer, because no fact or circumstance is averred indicating corruption, but, on the contrary, the facts stated imposed on the appellee the duty of deciding his case. A judge or justice is not liable because he renders an opinion not justified or authorized by the evidence. There must be corrupt action on his part before the liability exists, and this must be averred. In this case it appears the appellant had sold a...