Shea v. Berry
| Decision Date | 11 June 1919 |
| Citation | 93 Conn. 475,106 A. 761 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | SHEA v. BERRY et al. |
Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; James H. Webb, Judge.
Action for malicious prosecution by James J. Shea against Peter Berry and another. From an order setting aside a verdict for plaintiff, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Action for malicious prosecution, brought to the superior court in New Haven county and tried to the jury. Verdict for $750 against the defendant Berry, which the trial court set aside as against the evidence, from which action the plaintiff appealed. No error.
Albert P. Bradstreet and Joseph A. Bergin, both of Waterbury, for appellant.
Ulysses G. Church and Philip N. Bernstein, both of Waterbury for appellee.
The record discloses that on July 7, 1918, the defendant Berry was a policeman connected with the police department of the city of Waterbury. Berry and another witness both testified that about 2 o'clock in the morning of the 7th of July they discovered the plaintiff attempting to make an entrance into a saloon located upon East Main street in the city of Waterbury, and owned by one Knightly. These witnesses stated that Shea had one hand on a doorknob while he was attempting to open the door of the saloon with a key attached to a string of keys, which he afterward admitted that he owned. These witnesses were corroborated as to these facts, which were in part admitted by the plaintiff in the police court the morning after he was arrested, but denied by him in the trial of the case in the court below. The plaintiff's explanation of his conduct in this connection was so improbable that the jury could not have reasonably reached the conclusion that his attempt to enter the saloon was for a lawful purpose.
The propriety of the defendant's conduct in causing the arrest of the plaintiff is to be tested by the facts as they appeared to be at the time the prosecution in question was instituted; and the controlling question is whether these facts, as they then appeared, were such that an ordinarily discreet and prudent person would have been led to the belief that the plaintiff had committed the crime with which he was charged. If the defendant had knowledge of facts, actual or apparent, strong enough to justify a reasonable man in the belief that he had lawful grounds for prosecuting the plaintiff in the manner complained of, then the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mulligan v. Rioux
...no matter how sincere it may be, is not enough, since it must be based on circumstances which make it reasonable. Shea v. Berry, 93 Conn. 475, 478, 106 A. 761 [1919]. Although want of probable cause is negative in character, the burden is upon the plaintiff to prove affirmatively, by circum......
-
Clynch v. Chapman, 3:01CV1685(JBA).
...of New Haven, 220 Conn. 225, 256, 597 A.2d 807 (1991) (quoting respectively Wall v. Toomey, 52 Conn. 35, 36 (1884) and Shea v. Berry, 93 Conn. 475, 477, 106 A. 761 (1919)). Defendants move on Clynch's malicious prosecution claim on the ground that it was improperly brought under a substanti......
-
DeLaurentis v. City of New Haven
...a reasonable man in the belief that he has lawful grounds for prosecuting the defendant in the manner complained of." Shea v. Berry, 93 Conn. 475, 477, 106 A. 761 (1919). Thus, in the context of a vexatious suit action, the defendant lacks probable cause if he lacks a reasonable, good faith......
-
Zenik v. O'Brien
...alone, no matter how sincere it may be, is not enough, since it must be based on circumstances which make it reasonable. Shea v. Berry, 93 Conn. 475, 478, 106 A. 761. Although want of probable cause is negative in character, the burden is upon the plaintiff to prove affirmatively, by circum......
-
Vexatious Litigation in Connecticut: Malicious Prosecution of Civil Actions, Probable Cause, and Lawyer Liability
...a reasonable man in the belief that he has lawful grounds for prosecuting the defendant in the manner complained of." Shea v. Berry, 93 Conn. 475, 477 (1919). The California courts have more specifically addressed the definition of factual tenability in the vexatious litigation context, sta......