Josselyn v. McAllister
| Decision Date | 23 April 1872 |
| Citation | 25 Mich. 45 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Homer R. Josselyn v. George L. McAllister |
Submitted on Briefs April 20, 1872.
Error to Hillsdale Circuit.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
H. M & W. F. Cheever, for plaintiff in error.
George A. Knickerbocker, L. N. Keating, and E. L. Koon, for defendant in error.
Graves J., did not sit in this case.
The proceedings before us, growing out of a malicious arrest and false imprisonment, were passed upon under a former writ of error in April term, 1871, and the errors now assigned on a further trial are in some respects very like those assigned then. We shall, therefore, dispose of the case upon such new points as are supposed to arise.
Evidence was allowed to show that Josselyn (who made both the affidavits under which McAllister was arrested) said, in September, 1869, which was some time after the arrests, that he made the affidavits in the interest of the Singer Manufacturing Company, and they allowed him to spend what little money he wanted to carry them on. As these statements referred directly to his conduct in making the affidavits which caused the arrests, it is not very easy to see why they were not admissible. They bore directly on his course in taking the action complained of.
The same remarks will apply to the evidence of his conversation with, and threats made to McAllister in April, 1869, in regard to a proposed settlement. It appears that McAllister's refusal to comply with Josselyn's wishes at this time was one of the apparent reasons for the subsequent arrest. The whole course of dealing and negotiation between these two parties in person was very material in explaining the subsequent occurrences, and no testimony would have been more pertinent.
Evidence was rejected of conversations between McAllister and one Gale, concerning the receipt by McAllister of a sum of ten dollars, which it was claimed had not been accounted for. The court ruled that it could not be admitted unless it should also be shown that the fact had been brought in some way to Josselyn's knowledge, and in the absence of any such showing it should be rejected. This is directly within the rulings on the former hearing. If Josselyn acted without any knowledge or suspicion of the supposed fact, it could in no way affect his motives.
Several assignments of error rest upon the alleged refusal of the court to allow the failure to account for machines, as well as for money, to be taken into consideration in judging of Josselyn's belief of his right to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Welch v. Ware
...... were just under the circumstances. This principle is also. recognized in Johnson v. McKee, 27 Mich. 471; and. [32 Mich. 86] . Josselyn v. McAllister , 22 Mich. 300, and 25 Mich. 45. . . The. doctrine that want of malice may be shown in mitigation to. prevent the ......
-
Van Deusen v. Newcomer
...1), and the kindness shown him by his keepers only affects the question of damages, Page v. Mitchell, 13 Mich. 63; Josselyn v. McAllister, 25 Mich. 45; Welch v. Ware, 32 Mich. 77. Every interference with personal liberty is prima facie unlawful, Waterman on Trespass, § 381; Perry v. Buss, 1......
-
Lunsford v. Dietrich
...some evidence-sufficient, it seems, to lift the burden of proof in that regard off the plaintiff-of a want of probable cause. Josselyn v. McAllister, 25 Mich. 45; Vinal Core, 18 W.Va. 1. Charge 10 is faulty in its first proposition, if not otherwise. Conduct of the accused merely tending to......
-
Hanchey v. Brunson
...evidence--sufficient, it seems, to lift the burden of proof in that regard off the plaintiff--of a want of probable cause. Josselyn v. McAllister, 25 Mich. 45; Vinal Core, 18 W.Va. 1." The authorities are reviewed in Newell on Malicious Prosecution, pp. 282, 283. The Supreme Court of Missou......