Bruff v. Kendrick

Citations

• 21 Pa. Super. 468
• 1902 Pa. Super. LEXIS 384

Syllabus

<p>Malicious prosecution — Probable-cause—Evidence.</p> <p>In an action to recover damages for malicious prosecution where it appears that the plaintiff had been tried and found not guilty on two indictments, one charging him with wrongful conversion of goods as bailee, and the other with a wrongful appropriation of money as an employee, evidence is admissible to show the relation of plaintiff and defendant to each other, either as bailor and bailee, employer and employee, or debtor and creditor.</p> <p>Malicious prosecution — Probable cause.</p> <p>Probable cause does not depend upon the guilt or innocence of the plaintiff, but upon appearances deduced from facts known to the defendant and information received by him, and properly investigated, of a character to produce in the mind of a reasonably prudent and cautious person- the honest belief that the crime charged had been committed.</p> <p>Malicious prosecution — Probable cause — Province of court and jury.</p> <p>Whether certain facts constitute probable cause must be determined by the court, but whether such alleged facts exist is for the jury to find. Where the facts are in controversy the subject must be submitted to the jury, in which event it is the duty of the court to instruct them what facts will constitute probable cause, and submit to them only the question of such facts. If the admitted facts amount to probable cause, the court should direct a verdict for the defendant.</p> <p>When a prosecutor established that the accused was his servant, that bj' virtue of the employment he had received money belonging to his employer and had converted the same to his own use, such evidence not only establishes probable cause for the prosecution but would in the criminal proceeding make out a prima facie case against the accused, and in the absence of explanation would be sufficient to sustain a conviction. An instruction that even if these facts were established by evidence they did not constitute probable cause,