Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

5 S.C.L. 94

Nash v. Orr

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided December 15, 1812

Supreme Court of South Carolina · decided 1812-12-15

Action for a malicious prosecution, tried before Nott, J., in Pendleton district.' The judge reported, that the evidence on the trial proved circum stances of probable cause. The verdict was for the defendant. Grounds for the motion. 1. Misdirection of the judge, who directed the jury to judge of the want of probable cause; whereas, the court ought to judge whether the cause is probable or not. 2.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently September 2020

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1812-12-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Brevard, J.

¶1I am of opinion this motion ought to be rejected. The direction of the District Court to the jury was correct, that in an action for a malicious prosecution, the question of probable cause, is a mixed proposition of law and fact. That it is a matter of fact, whether the circumstances alleged, to shew it probable, or not, are true, and existed ; but whether, supposing them true, they amount to probable cause, is a question of law. 1 T. R. Sutton v. Johnson. 1 Wils. 232. 2 T. R. 231.

¶2*95It appears from the report of the presiding judge, that there was evidence of probable cause, which was left to the jury, with the aboye direction. I can perceive no reason to induce me to think the verdict is inconsistent with law, or the justice of the particular case.

Bat, Smith, and Colcock, Js. of the same opinion. Geimke, J., absent.
/5/scl/94 · .json · Public domain