Ritter v. Ewing

Citations

• 174 Pa. 341
• 34 A. 584
• 1896 Pa. LEXIS 885

Syllabus

<p>Malicious prosecution — Probable cause — Malice.</p> <p>In order to maintain an action for malicious prosecution, both malice and want of probable cause for the prosecution must be shown. Probable cause is a reasonable ground of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficient to warrant an ordinarily prudent man in believing the accused party is guilty of the offense. Want of probable cause does not establish legal malice to be declared by the court. It is merely evidence of malice, and therefore proper for the consideration of the jury.</p> <p>Malicious prosecution — Probable cause — Discharge by magistrate — Burden of proof.</p> <p>A discharge by the examining magistrate after hearing, casts upon the prosecutor — defendant in the civil action — the burden of showing probable •cause, unless it appears in the plaintiff’s testimony.</p> <p>Malicious prosecution — Question for jury.</p> <p>In an action for malicious prosecution, it appeared that defendant’s three year old child while playing in plaintiff’s back yard was bitten or scratched by a small dog belonging to the latter. Upon plaintiff’s refusal to comply with defendant’s request to kill the dog, defendant instituted a prosecution against him for keeping a ferocious dog. Held, that it was for the jury to say whether or not the circumstances were sufficient to warrant an •ordinarily prudent man in believing the plaintiff was guilty of the offense ■charged, and also whether there was malice.</p>