Taylor v. Dominick

Citations

• 36 S.C. 368
• 15 S.E. 591
• 1892 S.C. LEXIS 102

Syllabus

<p>1. Malicious Prosecution — Evidence op Character. — The rule which permits a defendant in an action for malicious criminal prosecution to attack the character of the plaintiff has no application to evidence offered to show that plaintiff’s character had not suffered by reason of the prosecution.</p> <p>2. Harmless Error- — Testimony.—If the trial judge erred in sustaining an objection to a question propounded to a witness, it was a harmless error where the same witness and another testified fully on the same point.</p> <p>3. Ibid. — Ibid.—Reasons op the Judge. — Where the ruling of the trial judge is correct, it will not be reversed on appeal because of its being based on erroneous grounds. Therefore where the trial judge excluded testimony, ruling that the plaintiff’s character was not in issue, it was a harmless error where the same testimony was received at another stage of the case and went to the jury, and where no effort was made to attack the character of the plaintiff.</p> <p>4. Charging Juries — Malicious Prosecution. — The trial judge has no right to say anything to the jury as to the sufficiency or insufficiency of evidence, nor is he bound to remodel a request to charge so as to make the requested proposition correct. Therefore, in action for malicious prosecution, the judge properly refused to charge that the finding of “no bill” by the grand jury was “not sufficient evidence of the want of probable cause,” as such finding was no evidence on this point, and the jury had been already, in effect, so charged.</p> <p>5. Ibid. — Ibid.—For like reasons the general powers of the grand jury were not relevant to the issues in such an action.</p> <p>Mr. Justice Aldrich, dissenting.</p>