Anderson v. Seattle Lighting Co.

Citations

• 71 Wash. 155
• 127 P. 1108
• 1912 Wash. LEXIS 712

Syllabus

<p>Malicious Prosecution — Probable Cause — Advice of Counsel— Question for Coubt. A gas company is not liable for a malicious prosecution of tbe plaintiff for stealing gas, and a nonsuit should have been directed, where it appears that its inspector was informed by two neighbors that the plaintiff was stealing gas, that he made an inspection, and discovered an unlawful connection by which gas was being used without being registered, that plaintiff admitted the existence of the connection, that the inspector truthfully communicated all the facts and circumstances within his knowledge to the prosecuting attorney, who advised and conducted the prosecution of the plaintifi; since probable cause then became a judicial question for the court, and under the facts probable cause was established.</p> <p>Same — Malice—Evidence—Sufficiency. In such a case, there is no sufficient evidence of malice, where it appears that neither the inspector nor any of the defendant’s officers knew the plaintiff or had any previous acquaintance with her.</p>