Skidmore v. Bricker

• Decision Date: 31 January 1875
• Citation: 1875 WL 8281,77 Ill. 164
• Parties: JOHN M. SKIDMOREv.ANNABEL BRICKER.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

77 Ill. 164

1875 WL 8281 (Ill.)

JOHN M. SKIDMORE

v.ANNABEL BRICKER.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

January Term, 1875.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

WRIT OF ERROR to the Circuit Court of Piatt county; the Hon. C. B. SMITH, Judge, presiding.

This was an action on the case, by Annabel Bricker against John M. Skidmore. The opinion states the substance of the facts.

The third of appellant's instructions, referred to in the opinion of the court, was as follows:

“The court instructs the jury, for the defendant, that, if they believe, from the evidence in the case, that the defendant fully, fairly and truthfully stated all the facts and circumstances in relation to the alleged riot, to respectable counsel, and that such counsel advised him that he had reasonable cause to institute the criminal proceedings against this plaintiff, and the defendant, in good faith, acted upon such advice, then the plaintiff can not maintain this action, whether such advice was correct or not, and whether the defendant in the criminal prosecution was guilty or not, and the jury must find for the defendant.”

The court below modified the same by adding the following words thereto: “If they believe, from the evidence, that the defendant stated fully, and fairly and truthfully all the facts connected with such alleged riot, and, in order to make that defense available against this plaintiff, the defendant must show that he truthfully, and fully and fairly stated all that this plaintiff did and said in connection with such alleged riot, which was within his knowledge, and which was material to a full understanding of the case by his counsel.”

Messrs. CREA & EWING, and Messrs. REED & BARRINGER, for the appellant.

Messrs. LODGE & HUSTON, and Mr. J. M. KERR, for the appellee.

Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE WALKER delivered the opinion of the Court:

Appellee brought an action on the case, in the Piatt circuit court, against appellant. The first count was for a malicious prosecution and imprisonment. The second and third counts were for trespass to the person, the latter for imprisonment without any probable cause. Defendant filed a plea of the general issue, and it was agreed that all evidence might be introduced which would be admissible under proper pleas. A trial was had by the court and a jury, resulting in a verdict for plaintiff, with damages of $775. A motion for a new trial was entered, but it was overruled by the court, and a judgment was rendered on the verdict, and this record is brought to this court and errors assigned.

The prosecution out of which this action springs, was for a riot, and the prosecuting witness made complaint on his own knowledge, and not on information and belief, and it is urged the court below erred in permitting appellee to call witnesses to prove her character for peace and quiet. We are at a loss to see how that could tend in any manner to prove the issue. Had the charge been made on information and belief, then such evidence would have been proper, to enable the jury to determine whether the prosecuting witness had reasonable ground for entertaining the belief, in the face of her known good character.

Where a person has an unblemished character, and the prosecuting witness is aware of the fact, it necessarily requires more evidence to create a reasonable belief of guilt, than where the accused has a bad character; and in cases where the prosecution is based on belief, this character of evidence is proper for the purpose indicated, but the reason of the rule ceases when the charge is based on knowledge of the facts. This evidence should not, therefore, have been admitted.

It appears that the prosecuting witness saw the State's Attorney before he commenced the prosecution, and stated to him the occurrence and the facts, and was advised that the parties against whom the prosecution was commenced were, according to the statement, guilty of a riot, and that the prosecutor would incur no liability in making a complaint. Where a person thus...