Neys v. Taylor

Citations

• 12 S.D. 488
• 81 N.W. 901
• 1900 S.D. LEXIS 63

Syllabus

<p>1. In an action for malicious prosecution in causing' plaintiff’s arrest for breaking and entering a dwelling' bouse, a recorded contract of sale by the owner of the property to plaintiff’s husband was admissible to show that defendant bad cause to believe that plaintiff and her husband had a right to enter the premises.</p> <p>2. Plaintiff and her husband, on returning to their home after an absence of six weeks, found the house locked, and were refused admission by defendant’s' servants. Plaintiff’s husband broke a window, and entered the house, and admitted plaintiff; whereupon defendant procured the arrest of both. Held, that defendant, had no probable cause for plaintiff’s arrest, since it did not appear that she took any direct part in the breaking.</p> <p>3. Comp. Laws, [i 6221, provides that a subjection sufficient to excuse a wife from punishment for certain crimes may be inferred from the fact of coverture, when she committed Ihe act charged in the presence and with the assent of her husband. Held, that Id. 4 2600, providing that married women shall retain the same legal status after marriage as before, and conferring on them rights not previously possessed, does not subject a wife to prosecution for a crime committed in the presence of, and with the assent of, her husband, from which she would be otherwise immune under Section 6221.</p> <p>4. In an action for malicious prosecution, where defendant had plaintiff arrested without probable cause while siclt, and plaintiff was not treated wilh proper care or consideration hy the constable, a verdict of $1,000 will not be set aside as excessive, though greatly in excess of the actual expense to which plaintiff was subjected by reason of the arrest.</p>