Heldt v. Webster

• Decision Date: 23 October 1883
• Docket Number: Case No. 1522.
• Citation: 60 Tex. 207
• Parties: M. HELDT v. B. B. WEBSTER.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

60 Tex. 207

M. HELDT

v.B. B. WEBSTER.

Case No. 1522.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Oct. 23, 1883.

APPEAL from Cass. Tried below before the Hon. B. T. Estes.

B. B. Webster, by his father as next friend, brought this action against M. Heldt for malicious prosecution, among other things alleging that, in connection with William Braxton and Jeff Benjamin, he was charged by appellant with fraudulently and wrongfully appropriating with Heldt's consent eight hundred pounds of cotton seed of the value of $24, the property of Heldt. Upon the examination before the justice all the parties accused were discharged. Webster alleged loss of reputation and character by reason of this act of Heldt, and also prayed for vindictive damages. Heldt answered by a general denial. A judgment for $14 actual and $251 punitory damages was given; from which this appeal is prosecuted.

O'Neal & Son and J. H. Henderson, for appellant.

H. A. O'Neal and Geo. T. Vaughan, for appellee.

STAYTON, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE.

This action was brought by the appellee by next friend to recover damages for malicious prosecution. It appears that the appellant had instituted and prosecuted to hearing before a justice of the peace a complaint in effect charging the appellee and others with the theft of cotton. Upon that hearing the appellee and the others with whom he stood charged were discharged.

Upon the trial of this cause the jury were instructed: “If the plaintiff was discharged from the prosecution by the examining magistrate who examined the case, then the presumption of law is that there was no probable cause; but if the evidence further shows that the defendant had reasonable cause to believe, and did believe, that the facts stated in the complaint were in fact true, then he would have such probable cause as the law contemplates.” This is assigned as error.

This question was decided in the case of Griffin v. Chubb, 7 Tex., 614, and it was there, in accordance with authority, held that a verdict of “not guilty” and discharge of the defendant in a criminal prosecution instituted by the defendant in the suit, who had testified in the criminal prosecution, did not raise a presumption of the want of probable cause.

The correctness of this ruling is not questioned by the appellee, but it is contended that the subsequent part of the charge corrected the error, and that the want of probable cause was fully shown by the evidence.

Whether there was want of probable cause was for the jury to...