Swaim v.Stafford
| Decision Date | 30 June 1843 |
| Citation | 3 Ired. 289,25 N.C. 289 |
| Parties | ANTOINETTE SWAIM BY HER NEXT FRIEND v. JOHN M. STAFFORD. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
In an action for malicious prosecution, those facts and circumstances, and those alone, which were known to the prosecutor at the time he instituted the prosecution, are to be considered in determining whether he had probable cause. Any other facts, which may be established on the trial to prove the innocence of the person accused, are irrelevant to the question of probable cause.
Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Stokes county, at Spring Term, 1843, his Honor Judge BATTLE presiding.
This was an action on the case for a malicious prosecution, in causing the plaintiff to be arrested on a warrant, charging her with feloniously stealing a parcel of belt ribbons--Plea, the general issue. In support of her action the plaintiff introduced and proved the warrant, as stated in the declaration, issued at the instance and on the oath of the defendant. The magistrate, before whom it was returned, testified that a belt ribbon, found in the possession of the plaintiff, was produced before him, and that, after examining the witnesses for the prosecution, among whom was the prosecutor, John M. Stafford, the present defendant, he, the magistrate, dismissed the warrant, it being proved on the part of the present plaintiff, that she had purchased the belt produced, or one like it, at a store in Salem a short time before.
The defence relied upon was, that the defendant had a probable cause for the prosecution, and to establish it he introduced several witnesses. Mr. Hartman testified, that the defendant was a merchant, and that the witness, on a Friday about the last of April or first of May, 1840, went to his store and saw the plaintiff, two of her sisters, two or three other grown ladies and two or three school girls in the room; that several parcels of goods were on the counter, near which the grown ladies were standing, the children being a little in the rear--that he saw the plaintiff, with one elbow leaning on the counter, turning over, as if she were examining, a bunch of belt ribbons, which she had in her hands--that he looked at the plaintiff and saw her look towards him--that he did not turn his attention towards her afterwards--that he did not see any thing suspicious about her--that in about fifteen minutes she and her sisters left the store--that he did not see any other person handling the ribbons-- that, after the company had gone, the defendant commenced putting his goods on the shelf, when he seemed to miss something, and took the goods down, to examine whether the articles, alleged to have been lost, were among them--that the witness then told him he had seen the plaintiff have the ribbons in her hands--that the plaintiff lived with her father, about two miles or two miles and an half from the store--that on the following Sunday he saw her at a preaching about four miles off, wearing a belt which he thought like the ribbons she was looking at in the store--that he might, but did not recollect that he did, tell the defendant or any other person that the ribbons were the same--and that the ribbon, produced before the magistrate and now on this trial, was, he thought, like some of those he saw the plaintiff have in the store. Miss Martha Harris testified that she had frequently been in the defendant's store, up to within a few months of the time when the warrant was taken out, and had seen ribbons there exactly like the one the plaintiff produced on the trial--that she had seen the plaintiff wear ribbons, but never saw her wearing one, like that produced, either before or since the trial. W. L. Swaim stated that he acted as clerk for the defendant during April court, 1840, and he saw there, during that time, ribbons like the one produced. Jackson Stafford, a brother of the detendant, testified that he had owned the store and sold it to the defendant about twelve...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Heap v. Parish
...v. Ferguson, 2 Denio, 617;Burlingame v. Burlingame, 8 Cow. 141;Scanlan v. Cowley, 2 Hilt. 489;French v. Smith, 4 Vt. 363;Swaim v. Stafford, 3 Ired. 289;Johnson v. Chambers, 10 Ired. 287;Raulston v. Jackson, 1 Sneed, 128;Faris v. Starke, 3 B. Mon. 4; Delegal v. Highley, 3 Bing. (N. C.) 950; ......
-
Moore v. First Nat. Bank
...upon which the warrant of attachment were based are to be considered in determining the question whether he had probable cause. Swaim v. Stafford, supra; Beale v. Roberson, The defendant Brown knew that plaintiff was indebted to the bank in a large amount; that the debt was unsecured, and h......
-
Motsinger v. Sink
...action, defendant in the other, nor facts tending to prove the same, that bear upon this question, for as Judge Daniel says in Swaim v. Stafford. 25 N. C. 289: "The question of probable cause rested only on those facts and circumstances which were known to the prosecutor at the time he made......
-
Johnson v. Miller
...were known to the prosecutor at the time the prosecution was begun, and not upon any which afterwards came to his knowledge. Swaim v. Stafford, 3 Ired. 289;Munns v. Dupont, 1 Amer. Lead. Cas. 213;Galloway v. Stewart, 49 Ind. 156.W. A. Foster and C. E. Wheeler, for appellee. It is not necess......