Humphreys v. Mead

Citations

• 23 Pa. Super. 415
• 1903 Pa. Super. LEXIS 86

Syllabus

<p>Malicious prosecution — Probable cause — Malice—Advice of counsel.</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 reasonable, prudent and cautious person the honest belief that the crime charged had been committed.</p> <p>Malice may be inferred from a want of probable cause. The inference is one of fact, however, and not a conclusion of law. The want of probable cause becomes therefore evidence of malice, the existence of which is to be determined by the jury.</p> <p>In order to make the advice of counsel available by way of defense, it must be shown that the party gave to his counsel a full and fair statement of the facts within his knowledge, or which he had reasonable grounds to believe he could prove, that he used reasonable diligence to ascertain the facts, and that he acted in good faith upon the advice received. Evidence of this character is admissible to rebut the charge of malice, but its relevancy is to establish a fact, not to produce a conclusion of law.</p>