Cole v. Reece

Citations

• 47 Pa. Super. 212
• 1911 Pa. Super. LEXIS 136

Syllabus

<p>Malicious prosecution — Probable cause — Malice—Province of court and jury.</p> <p>1. In an action for malicious prosecution it is necessary to a recovery that want of probable cause and malice be proved. Want of probable cause having been shown, malice may be inferred, but it is indispensable that it affirmatively appear that the prosecution was instituted without probable cause. Whether an established state of facts amounts to probable cause is a question of law. If there be a dispute as to the facts, the question must go to the jury, but if the facts shown amount to probable cause the court should grant a nonsuit or give binding instructions to the jury as the state of the case may suggest. Where the plaintiff’s own evidence discloses probable cause the presumption in his favor arising from his acquittal in the criminal proceeding or his discharge by the grand jury is not sufficiént to take the case to the jury.</p> <p>2. Probable cause is a reasonable ground for belief of the guilt of the accused. Where the circumstances are of such a character as to warrant a cautious man in the belief that the person accused is guilty of the offense, probable cause exists. The question does not turn on the innocence or guilt of the accused but on the prosecutor’s belief of his guilt based upon reasonable grounds.</p> <p>'3. In an action to recover damages for malicious prosecution for forcible entry and detainer, a nonsuit is properly entered where it appears that the plaintiff entered into possession of land as to the title of which he had a pending ejectment, and as to which he had been out of possession for ten years, and that when defendant went upon the land to cut timber he was turned away by the plaintiff and his family by a show of violence and arms.</p>