From Burke. The forge of one Murphey hatl many years before been washed away, and the iron bands on one of the, large-wheels had for some time been missing. The Defendant obtained a warrant against the Plaintiff, charging him with having committed a larceny of one of these bands 5 on this warrant he had been apprehended, and after examination was discharged. The Plaintiff then brought this action for a malicious prosecution.
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently January 1817
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
¶1I think it was unnecessary to produce the warrant relative to which Shelton and Watt gave evidence before the justice of the peace, because in this case, the title to the iron is not in question, nor is it necessary for the same reason that Watt should be called to declare on oath what he swore to before the magistrate relative to the iron. That proceeding is given in evidence now collaterally to prove a knowledge in the defendant that the plaintiff had not improperly become possessed of the iron, and that there was no probable cause for the prosecution. I also think it was competent to show in evidence the indictment against the defendant's brother on which the plaintiff was indorsed as a witness, because it is from such circumstances that the jury are at liberty, if they think proper, to believe that the prosecution was malicious, and on that account (189) give adequate damages. I therefore think the rule for a new trial should be discharged.
