Henderson v. Francis

• Court: Georgia Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Blandford, Justice
• Citation: Henderson v. Francis, 75 Ga. 178 (Ga. 1885)
• Decision Date: 31 October 1885
• Parties: Henderson, by next friend. vs. Francis et al.

75 Ga. 178

Henderson, by next friend. vs. Francis et al.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

OCTOBER TERM, 1885.

Charge of Court. Practice in Superior Court. Evidence. Pleadings. Justification. Malicious Arrest. Malicious Prosecution. Verdict. Before Judge Clarke. City Court of Atlanta. December Term, 1884

To the report contained in the decision, it is necessary to add only the following: The basis of this action for damages was the fact that Rachel Francis, one of the defendants, had caused the plaintiff to be arrested and had prosecuted him on a charge of larceny, it being alleged that this was malicious and without probable cause, and that on his trial he had been found not guilty. The defendant pleaded the general issue; also the following special plea:

The court held that this was a plea of justification and entitled the defendant to open and conclude the argument.

During the progress of the case, the plaintiff's counsel offered in evidence the transcript of the testimony which had been given in on the committing trial of the plaintiff under the warrant taken out by Mrs. Francis. It was admitted, but not read to the jury. After this, counsel for the plaintiff moved to withdraw all of this evidence, except the transcript of the testimony of the defendant, Mrs. Francis. Counsel for the defendants objected, and the court refused the motion.

The evidence was voluminous and conflicting. That on behalf of the defendants went to establish the facts set up in the plea, while the plaintiff denied them.

The jury found for the defendants. The plaintiff moved for a new trial, on many grounds, including the above stated ratings. The motion was overruled, and the plaintiff excepted.

Haygood & Martin; Speairs & Simmons, for plaintiff in.error.

Hoke & Burton Smith, for defendants.

Blandford, Justice.

This was an action for malicious prosecution and arrest. A verdict was had for defendant, the plaintiff moved for a new trial, which the court refused; exception is taken to this ruling of the court, and error thereon is assigned here.

1. There are many assignments of error as to the charge of the court and refusal to charge. The charge of the court is set out fully in the record, and a careful examination of the same discloses no errors therein; it is full and fair, and covers all the issues in the case.

2. The refusal to charge was proper. A court is not bound to recharge the jury at the instance of either party, however legal and pertinent the request may be, when the same has been given fully and fairly in charge to the jury.

3. It is insisted that the court erred in holding that defendants' plea was a plea of justification, and in allowing the defendants to open and...