Sappington v. Watson
| Citation | 50 Mo. 83 |
| Parties | SEBASTIAN SAPPINGTON, Respondent, v. WESTLEY WATSON, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 31 March 1872 |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.
Samuel Knox and Jacob Klein, for appellant.
Lackland, Martin & Lackland, for respondent.
In the trial of this case several objections were taken to the ruling of the court on the admissibility of evidence, but on looking into the record we find that the objections were mostly of a general nature without specifying any reasons therefor, and we are satisfied that no material errors were committed. The only matter worthy of any consideration is the action of the court in giving and refusing instructions. The action was for malicious prosecution in causing the arrest of the plaintiff upon a charge of misdemeanor. It appears from the record that the plaintiff and others were members of a township board of education in St. Louis county, and that defendant, previous to the arrest, claimed that they had failed to comply with the law, which required that they should make and prescribe certain rules and regulations for the guidance of the local school directors, and also establish a separate school for colored children. For this alleged failure the defendant consulted counsel, who, upon his statement of facts, advised him that the board were liable to prosecution for an official misdemeanor, and an affidavit was then drawn up which the defendant swore to; and the members of the board were all arrested, gave bond for their appearance in court, and upon a hearing were discharged.
The question of malice and want of probable cause were directly put in issue, and the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff. The court gave two instructions for the plaintiff, and refused several which were asked for by the defendant.
The first instruction given told the jury that in order to enable the defendant to shield himself on the ground that he obtained the advice of counsel learned in the law, it must appear in evidence that he stated to said counsel all the facts bearing on the guilt o innocence of the defendant, which he knew or by reasonable diligence could have found out. This instruction is unexceptionable and drawn up in the very language used by this court in Hill v Palm, 38 Mo. 13.
The second instruction was to the effect that if the jury believed from the evidence that the defendant willfully, maliciously, and without probable cause, did swear to and make affidavit and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hanser v. Bieber
...our rulings, persuasive evidence of want of probable cause. Sharpe v. Johnston, 59 Mo. loc. cit. 577, 76 Mo. loc. cit. 670; Sappington v. Watson, 50 Mo. 83; Casperson v. Sproull, 39 Mo. 39; Brant v. Higgins, 10 Mo. 728; Christian v. Hanna, 58 Mo. App. We are not unmindful of the fact that t......
-
Hanser v. Bieber
...constituted, under our rulings, persuasive evidence of want of probable cause. (Sharpe v. Johnston, 59 Mo. 557, 59 Mo. 557; Sappington v. Watson, 50 Mo. 83; Casperson v. Sproule, 39 Mo. 39; Brant Higgins, 10 Mo. 728; Christian v. Hanna, 58 Mo.App. 37.] We are not unmindful of the fact that ......
-
S. Carp v. Queen Insurance Company
... ... Railroad, 103 Mo.App. 454; Chitty v ... Railroad, 166 Mo. 435 ... H. H ... Bloss, McNatt & McNatt and G. A. Watson for respondent ... (1) (a) ... Where one offers the same sort of evidence, he waives any ... objection he might have had to its ... prior to putting the machinery of criminal law in motion ... [ Hill v. Palm, 38 Mo. 13; Sappington v ... Watson, 50 Mo. 83; Sharpe v. Johnston, 59 Mo ... 557; Ibid v. Ibid, 76 Mo. 660.]" ... [101 S.W. 92] ... The plaintiff invokes this ... ...
-
Stubbs v. Mulholland
...ascertained by proper diligence bearing on the question of his guilt. Pipkin v. Haucke, 15 Mo.App. 373; Hill v. Palm, 38 Mo. 13; Sappington v. Watson, 50 Mo. 83; Sharpe Johnston, supra. Any fact that defendants might have thus ascertained is the same as if they had actually known it. (4) Th......