Smith v. Ege
| Decision Date | 24 May 1866 |
| Citation | 52 Pa. 419 |
| Parties | Smith <I>versus</I> Ege. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Though there are four assignments of error, they present but one question. It is whether, if the evidence submitted to the jury was believed, probable cause for the prosecution against the plaintiff had been shown. As he had been discharged by the examining magistrate, the burden of showing affirmatively that there was probable cause rested upon the defendant, and the Court of Common Pleas was of opinion that he had given sufficient evidence to establish it. There is always a presumption in favour of the correctness of the decisions made by Courts of Common Pleas, and hence, he who complains of error, must give to us the means of determining with certainty that error has been committed. We cannot know whether probable cause for a criminal prosecution has been shown, unless we are accurately informed what evidence was given. It was therefore incumbent upon the plaintiff in error to spread before us the whole evidence duly certified, or as agreed upon by the attorneys of both parties. Without this, we can in no such case as the present, conclude there was a mistake in affirming that the defendant had probable cause for instituting the prosecution. We have now no such exhibition of the proofs, and the parties are not agreed respecting it. But looking to so much as is presented by the paper-book, we think the court was not in error.
Probable cause does not depend on the actual state of the case in point of fact, but upon the honest and reasonable belief of the party prosecuting. It has been variously defined as such a suspicion as would induce a reasonable man to commence a prosecution, Cabanes v. Martin, 5 Dev. 454; or a reasonable ground of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficient to warrant a cautious man in believing that the party is guilty of the offence Munns v. Dupont, 3 Wash. C. C. 31; or as in our own cases, a deceptive appearance of guilt arising from facts and circumstances misapprehended, or misunderstood, so far as to produce belief: Seibert v. Price, 5 W. & S. 439, and Beach v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miller v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co.
...... highly significant that no attempt is made to show malice. except by inference because of alleged lack of probable. cause. It is true that such an inference of the existence of. malice is permissible, but it has rarely been sufficient. unaided by some showing of private motive; e.g., Smith v. Walter , 125 Pa. 453, 17 A. 466, was a dispute between. neighboring owners of rival business establishments;. Taubman v. Schulte, Inc., 302 Pa. 170, 153 A. 150, a. dispute between employer and employee, resulted in a directed. verdict for defendant; and Hubert v. The Alta Life. ......
-
Miller v. Pennsylvania R. Co.
...v. Anderson, 103 Pa. 151; Cooper v. Wm. R. Hart & Co., 147 Pa. 594, 23 A. 833; [371 Pa. 330] Bernar v. Dunlap, 94 Pa. 329; Smith v. Ege, 52 Pa. 419; Stratton v. Jordan, 77 Pa.Super. 596; Wolf v. Stern, 71 Pa.Super. 191; Sheldrake v. Rumpf, 68 Pa.Super. 546; Kuhns v. WardMackey Co., 55 Pa.Su......
-
Taylor v. American International Shipbuilding Corporation
...v. Stern, 71 Pa.Super. 191; Stratton v. Jordan, 77 Pa.Super. 596; Roessing v. Rys., 226 Pa. 523; McCarthy v. DeArmit, 99 Pa. 63; Smith v. Ege, 52 Pa. 419; Cooper v. Hart, 147 Pa. 594. W. B. Gery, for appellee, cited: Hess v. Heft, 3 Pa. Superior Ct. 582; Haines v. Emergency Fleet Corp., 268......
-
McAndrew v. Scranton Republican Pub. Co.
...must have rested on reasonable and probable cause. Winebiddle v. Porterfield, 9 Pa. 137; Chapman v. Calder, 14 Pa. 365; Smith v. Ege, 52 Pa. 419.' (Italics In an action for defamation where privileged communication is a defense, the plaintiff is not required to negative reasonable and proba......