Lyon v. Hancock

Citations

• 35 Cal. 372

Syllabus

<p>Evidence in Action for Punitive Damages.—In an action where punitive damages are claimed, on the ground of malice, either party is entitled to prove any facts or circumstances which tend in the slighest degree either to show malice or to rebut the presumption of malice.</p> <p>Idem.—In such case no fact or circumstance should be excluded unless the Court is satisfied to a moral certainty that the jury can draw no rational presumption from it.</p> <p>Existence of Malice.—If one person arrests another for the commission of a crime, under the belief that the person arrested has committed the crime, the person making the arrest cannot be said to act maliciously, although he may act unlawfully.</p> <p>Relevant Testimony in Action fob Malicious Abbest of Plaintiff’s Wife.— In an action by husband and wife for the illegal and malicious arrest of the latter by the defendant, for a supposed criminal offense committed upon his property, and of the commission of which by the wife there is circumstantial evidence only, it is competent for the defendant to prove threats and ill will on the part of the husband against him, as tending to prove that the wife committed the offense for which the defendant arrested her, and to rebut the charge of malice on his part.</p>