Patterson v. Garlock
| Decision Date | 29 October 1878 |
| Citation | 39 Mich. 447 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Henry J. Patterson v. Levi Garlock |
Submitted October 11, 1878
Error to Clinton.
Trespass on the case for malicious prosecution. Defendant brings error.
Judgment affirmed with costs.
Randolph Strickland for plaintiff in error.
S. L Kilbourne for defendant in error. Where a defendant in an action for malicious prosecution puts in issue the truth of the charge on which the prosecution was instituted, evidence that it was not true becomes pertinent, Sherman v Kortright, 52 Barb. 267; People v. Doyle, 21 Mich. 221; 2 Greenl. Ev., § 454; evidence is admissible as to what the defendant had said about the charge which he had made on which plaintiff was prosecuted, Vanderbilt v Mathis, 5 Duer 304; McKown v. Hunter, 30 N. Y., 625; Chambers v. Robinson, 1 Strange 691; but it is not admissible to show that plaintiff had committed a different offense, though of the same character, Newsam v. Carr, 2 Stark. 69; People v. Schweitzer, 23 Mich. 301; 2 Greenl. Ev., § 458.
Patterson accused Garlock on oath before a justice with having stolen tobacco from a store or shop of one Daniels in Watertown, Clinton county, and caused him to be arrested, held and examined before the justice for the alleged offense, and the justice acquitted and discharged him. Garlock then brought this action and alleged that the prosecution against him was false and malicious. He recovered a verdict for $ 135 and Patterson alleges error.
All the objections relate to rulings in regard to the admission of testimony. No complaint is made of the charge and it does not appear in the record.
There is no force in the objection that the plaintiff should not have been allowed to state that he was arrested. It had been fully shown already without objection that he was, and it does not appear to have been a matter of dispute. The inquiry of the plaintiff was simply formal and introductory. Hence whether it was or was not a competent mode of proof of the fact is not necessary to be decided. The result could not have been influenced by it.
It was proper to inquire concerning the personal relations existing between the parties antecedent to the criminal complaint. It was an inquiry which related directly to the question of malice and might possibly develop a state of facts bearing on the question of probable cause, and the newspaper article written by Patterson in March, 1874, was competent. It tended to show that Patterson held hostile feelings and bore upon that part of the issue relating to motive. The admission made to the prosecuting attorney by Patterson that he was not personally cognizant of any of the facts on which he based his charge was relevant. It belonged to the inquiry whether he had probable cause or not for putting the law in motion.
The refusal of the defendant's offer of proof that Garlock had committed a theft of tobacco from one Davis in 1874 was not error. The sole ground on which the offer is defended is that the proof was competent to affect the amount of damages and the reason given in its favor is that if Garlock was guilty of that theft, he was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Meysenberg v. Engelke
...to third persons, with no intent that they should reach defendant, were properly excluded. Christman v. Carney, 33 Ark. 316; Patterson v. Carlock, 39 Mich. 447; Degenhart v. Schmidt, 7 Mo. App. 117; Carson v. Edgeworth, 43 Mich. 241. The instructions given to the jury upon the question as t......
-
Bank of Miller v. Richmon
... ... 582; and apparently by ... Thompson v. Beacon Valley Rubber Co., 56 Conn. 493, ... 16 A. 554. [68 Neb. 738] It is opposed to Patterson v ... Garlock, 39 Mich. 447, a case which cites no authority, ... and to Winemiller v. Thrash, 125 Ind. 353, 25 N.E ... 350, and Long v. Rogers, ... ...
-
Allen v. William J. Burns International Detective Agency, Inc.
... ... The overwhelming weight of authority, ... however, is to the contrary, and in keeping with the ruling ... of the trial court. Patterson v. Garlock, 39 Mich ... 447; Goodman v. Klein, 87 W.Va. 292, 104 S.E. 726; ... Kerstetter v. Thomas, 36 Wash. 620, 79 P. 290; 38 ... ...
-
Ohrenberger v. Pere Marquette R. Co.
...King v. Colvin, 11 R. I. 582. Whatever may be the rule in other jurisdictions, we think the law for this state was settled in Patterson v. Garlock, 39 Mich. 447. In that case Mr. Justice Graves, speaking for the entire court, said: ‘It requires no reasoning to show that, where the question ......