Keener v. Jeffries

Citations

• 54 Pa. Super. 553
• 1913 Pa. Super. LEXIS 103

Syllabus

<p>Malicious prosecution — Probable cause — Malice—Case for jury.</p> <p>1. To maintain an action for malicious prosecution, both want of probable cause for the prosecution and malice in the prosecutor must be affirmatively shown. Where the evidence establishes want of probable cause, malice may be inferred by the jury from such want of probable cause.</p> <p>2. When the facts are controverted, and in some cases whpre thp actual belief of the prosecutor enters into the consideration of the question, a court can do no more than define what constitutes probable cause, and submit to the jury to find whether the constituents of it have been proved, or rather whether it has been shown that those facts were wanting which the law declares to be essential to justify a prosecution.</p> <p>3. In an action for malicious prosecution it appeared that plaintiff and defendant were both barbers, and that the plaintiff had been at one time in the employ of the defendant. It appeared that defendant had visited a shop where plaintiff had secured employment, and seeing a razor in plaintiff’s hands said, “That is a razor that was stolen from me. I have made up my mind any time I find one of them razors in any one’s possession, that I would have him arrested.” Plaintiff said, “You don’t think I would do anything like that.” Defendant replied, “No, I don’t think that; but I always made up my mind whenever I would find one of them razors I would have the man arrested.” Plaintiff was arrested for larceny, indicted and acquitted. The evidence tended to show that the plaintiff at the time the larceny was committed was in another state, and that defendant knew that fact at the time he caused the plaintiff’s arrest. Held, that the case was for the jury and that verdict and judgment for plaintiff should be sustained.</p>