Staples v. Johnson
Staples v. Johnson
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the Court:
Undoubtedly, to maintain a suit for malicious prosecution, it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove both malice and want of’ probable cause. In the ease at bar such malice and probable cause must relate to the prosecution by appellant of the charge of embezzlement.
The appellee was not guilty of embezzlement, because the money was retained without concealment and under a claim of right evidently made in good faith, and whether it was well founded or not is immaterial. If there was any proof of malice and lack of probable cause in the prosecution, it was clearly th& duty of the trial justice to submit the case to the jury. Malice is a question exclusively for the jury, and while probable cause is a mixed question of law and fact, becoming a question of law after the facts are ascertained, and devolving upon the court the duty to instruct the jury as to the law arising upon the facts,, the trial justice, in view of the proofs in the case at bar, would clearly have erred had he granted the first prayer and instructed the jury to find for appellant. There was evidence which required that question to be submitted to the jury. Appellant did
AVe think the jury was warranted in finding want of probable cause. The trial justice was correct in his refusal to grant ■the first prayer. The fourth prayer was rightfully refused by the trial justice. Of the claim made by appellee that the appellant was indebted to him it is not necessary that the indebtedness should have been for a liquidated amount. If it be meant by the term “indefinite amount," employed in the prayer, that it was for an unliquidated amount, the contention is not well
Believing that no error was committed by the trial justice in refusing to charge the first and fourth prayers, it follows that the judgment of the court below should be affirmed, with costs, and it is so ordered. Affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- STAPLES v. JOHNSON
- Cited By
- 3 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Malicious Prosecution; Probable Cause; Embezzlement; Instructions to the Jury. 1. In a suit for malicious prosecution it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove both malice and want of probable cause. 2. Malice is a question exclusively for the jury, while probable cause is a mixed question of law and fact, becoming a question of law after the facts are ascertained, and devolving upon the court the duty to instruct the jury as to the law arising upon the facts. 3. Where the facts are sufficient to support it, an instruction in an action for malicious prosecution is correct which tells the jury that, if they believe from the evidence that the defendant “acted on advice of legal counsel in making the affidavit upon which the warrant for embezzlement issued, and under the honest belief that he was taking only such action as was warranted by law, he having first given a full statement of the facts of the case to counsel, the verdict should be for the defendant.” 4. Where the night clerk of a hotel, a man of good reputation, after his discharge for a trifling cause by the proprietor, retained $10 which he had in the money drawer, on the ground that he was owed more than that sum by the proprietor, and the latter procured his arrest for embezzlement after consulting counsel, which prosecution resulted in the discharge of the accused, the grand jury ignoring the charge, there is enough to warrant the submission of the facts to the jury in an action against the proprietor for malicious prosecution. 5. In a malicious prosecution ease, if the question of probable cause be-erroneously submitted to the jury, instead of being decided by the trial court, a finding for the plaintiff will not be disturbed on appeal, if it appear that the jury has not erred in point of law; there being no-prejudicial error. 6. Where a discharged clerk, without concealment and in good faith, retains his employer’s money under a claim that his employer owes-him more than the sum retained, he is not guilty of embezzlement, and. it is immaterial whether liis claim is well founded; nor is it necessary that the indebtedness, if any, due him should be for a liquidated, amount. The question is whether the claim was made in good faith.