Travis v. Smith
| Decision Date | 01 January 1845 |
| Citation | 1 Pa. 234 |
| Parties | HARVEY H. TRAVIS, Plaintiff in error, who was Defendant below, v. TITUS SMITH, Jun. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Case, for the plaintiff in error, argued, that probable cause was a mixed question of law and fact. That whether the circumstances proved established the fact of probable cause, was a question of law to be decided by the court. The jury find the facts, and it then becomes the duty of the court to decide whether the facts so found amount to probable cause. In this case, he contended that the court should have charged the jury, that if they believed the evidence, there was probable cause. Instead of doing this, they left the whole matter of probable cause to the jury. He relied upon and cited, 1 Whart. Dig. 13, pl. 35; 3 Wash. C. C. Rep. 31; 1 Peter's Dig. 63, pl. 311; 5 Hall's Law Journal, 514; 6 Am. C. L. 552, pl. 8, 9, 10 & 11; 1 Salk. 15.
Richards, for defendant in error.
1. The court below were not requested to charge the jury according to the proposition contained in the error assigned, nor as to the legal effect of the facts given in evidence; therefore there was no error in stating the law generally, which was done according to the case of Seibert v. Price, 5 Watts and Serg. 438, &c.
2. If the court had charged as it is contended by the counsel for the plaintiff in error they should have done, it would have been gross error, for the facts showed there was no probable cause even for the prosecution of the Greens.
The facts were all within Travis's knowledge, and he could not have been mistaken.
But even if the Greens were not justifiable, there was not probable cause for including Smith, who was there on compulsion, the sworn officer of the law, in the discharge of his duty, executing the process of the law. Of this fact Travis had full knowledge.
3. The case of Seibert v. Price decides that the question of probable cause should be submitted to the jury upon the question of the defendant's belief of the plaintiff's guilt or innocence. In the case at bar the cause was so submitted to the jury, and if there was error, it operated in the defendant's favour, and consisted in submitting the case to the jury in a light more favourable than the defendant was entitled to have it submitted.
The opinion of the court was delivered by SERGEANT, J.
Absolute certainty being unattainable in human affairs, we are compelled, in our most...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Talley
...be bailable by sufficient sureties, unless for capital offences, when the proof is evident, or presumption great.").20 Cf . Travis v. Smith , 1 Pa. 234, 234-35 (1845) (holding that, in a civil suit for falsely "procuring a warrant for taking and apprehending" an individual accused of a crim......
-
Meinholtz v. Henryetta Gas Co.
...its duty to so instruct the jury. Wells, Law & Fact, section 291; Besson v. Southard, 10 N.Y. 236; Stone v. Crocker, 24 Pick. 81; Travis v. Smith, 1 Pa. 234; Hill v. Palm, 38 Mo. 13; Wells v. Parsons. 3 Har. (Del.) 505, Upon the facts, and taking them to the fullest extent and with every po......
-
Lomax v. Smith
...claim of false arrest against the arresting officers. Fagan v. Pittsburgh Terminal Coal Corp., 299 Pa. 109, 149 A. 159 (1930); Travis v. Smith, 1 Pa. 234 (1845). Judge Kalish, after hearing testimony from Detectives Smith and Hill, concluded that "the arrest was based on sufficient probable......
-
Boyd v. Kerr
...a compulsory nonsuit, as the case may be: McCarthy v. De Armit, 99 Pa. 63; Smith v. Ege, 52 Pa. 419; Mahaffey v. Byers, 151 Pa. 92; Travis v. Smith, 1 Pa. 234; Beach Wheeler, 30 Pa. 69; Dietz v. Langfitt, 63 Pa. 234; Bryant v. Kuntz, 25 Pa.Super. 102; Bruff v. Kendrick, 21 Pa.Super. 468; Br......