Steimling v. Bower

• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: MR. JUSTICE WILLIAMS:
• Citation: Steimling v. Bower, 156 Pa. 408, 27 A. 299 (Pa. 1893)
• Decision Date: 19 July 1893
• Docket Number: 46
• Parties: Steimling v. Bower, Appellant

27 A. 299

156 Pa. 408

Steimling v. Bower, Appellant

No. 46

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

July 19, 1893

Argued May 22, 1893

Appeal, No. 46, July T., 1893, by defendant, Jacob Bower from judgment of C.P. Northumberland Co., Feb. T., 1893, No 163, on verdict for plaintiff, John Steimling.

Trespass for malicious prosecution.

The facts appear in Com. v. Steimling, the preceding case.

Defendant's point was among others as follows:

"3. Plaintiff has failed to show want of probable cause and malice on the part of Jacob Bower, therefore he is not entitled to recover in this suit. Answer: This we do not affirm. We do not say to you that the plaintiff has failed to show want of probable cause. We have already instructed you that under the evidence in this case the plaintiff has shown it. We do not say to you that the plaintiff has failed to show malice on the part of Jacob Bower, neither do we say to you that the plaintiff has shown it, but we submit that question to you as to whether he has or has not shown malice on the part of Jacob Bower, under all the evidence in this case." [4]

Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $100. Defendant appealed.

Error assigned was (4) instruction, quoting it.

If the defendant in that case had been convicted no one would pretend that this action could be maintained. On a consideration of all the facts we are not disposed to direct a venire facias de novo, but the judgment of the court below is reversed.

S. B. Boyer, C. B. Witmer with him, for appellant, cited: 14 A. & E. Enc. L. 28; Reynolds v. DeGeer, 13 Ill. Ap. 113; Nebenzahl v. Townsend, 61 How. Pr. 353; Howell v. Edwards, 8 Ired. 516; Dietz v. Langfitt, 63 Pa. 234; Bernar v. Dunlap, 94 Pa. 331; Gilliford v. Windel, 108 Pa. 142; Cooper v. Hart, 147 Pa. 594; McClafferty v. Philp, 151 Pa. 86; McCarthy v. DeArmit, 99 Pa. 69; Travis v. Smith, 1 Pa. 234; Fisher v. Forrester, 33 Pa. 501.

No book filed for appellee.

Before STERRETT, C.J., WILLIAMS, MITCHELL, DEAN and THOMPSON, JJ.

OPINION

MR. JUSTICE WILLIAMS:

This case grows out of the Commonwealth v. John Steimling, in which an opinion is filed herewith. That was a prosecution for the larceny of anthracite coal, in which the learned judge of the court below directed the jury to render a verdict of not guilty, for the reason that the facts relied on by the commonwealth as justifying a conviction were wholly insufficient for that purpose, and amounted to a simple trespass and no more. After the verdict was rendered, this action was brought to recover damages for an alleged malicious prosecution. Bower defended on the ground that, even if mistaken as to the legal value of the facts, they afforded probable cause for instituting the prosecution.

The learned trial judge overruled this defence and instructed the jury in effect that as the facts charged did not amount to larceny they afforded no probable cause for the prosecution and that this fact was evidence upon the question of the existence of malice in the mind of the prosecutor against the defendant. Upon this view of the case the jury found for the plaintiff. We have decided that the learned judge was mistaken in his view of the...