Price v. Stanley

• Decision Date: 12 March 1901
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: PRICE . v. STANLEY.

38 S.E. 33

128 N.C. 38

PRICE .

v.STANLEY.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 12, 1901.

MALICIOUS PROSECUTION—PROBABLE CAUSE-ERROR OF JUSTICE.

A justice of the peace, on the complaint of defendant, issued a warrant against the plaintiff on the charge of willfully and unlawfully trespassing on defendant's land by raking up and hauling off manure. The justice had jurisdiction of the action, and on the trial adjudged plaintiff guilty, but bound him over to the superior court, where a nolle prosequi was entered. Held, in an action for malicious prosecution, that defendant was not responsible for the justice's error in binding plaintiff over to the superior court instead of entering final judgment, and the judgment of the justice established probable cause for the arrest.

Appeal from superior court, Johnston county; Robinson, Judge.

Action by W. G. Price against J. H. Stanley. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Jas. H. Pou, for appellant.

E. S. Abell and Wellons & Morgan, for appellee.

MONTGOMERY, J. This action was brought by the plaintiff to recover damagesfrom the defendant for alleged malicious prosecution. A justice of the peace of Johnston county, upon the complaint of the defendant in this action (Stanley), issued a warrant against the plaintiff in this action (Price), In which Price was charged with willfully and unlawfully trespassing upon the lands of Stanley "by raking up and hauling off manure." After hearing the evidence in the criminal proceeding the justice of the peace adjudged that Price was guilty. He, however, bound him over to the next term of the superior court of Johnston county. At that term of the superior court a nol. pros, was entered by the solicitor in the action. On the trial of the present action the plaintiff testified that the defendant had told him not to go on the land again, that the fences were all on his (defendant's) land, and that he (the plaintiff) must not rake up manure or any more dirt from the fence jambs, as all the jambs and the fence were on defendant's land. The defendant demurred to the plaintiff's evidence. His honor sustained the demurrer and dismissed the action, and the plaintiff appealed.

We think that his honor committed no error in the matter. The offense charged in the warrant was not as clearly set out as it might have been, but on the hearing and the trial before the justice of the peace the evidence made clear any seeming uncertainty of the offense charged, and that it was...