Riney v. Vanlandingham
Supreme Court of Missouri
ERROR to Scotland Circuit Court. 1. The evidence was not sufficient to prove either malice or want of probable cause. The weight of evidence is decidedly the other way; therefore a new trial should have been granted. 2. Plaintiff’s own statement to Hickman, Riney not being present, was illegal evidence. He could not in that way make evidence for himself. 3. Riney’s evidence before the justice ought to have been admitted.
Read the full summary
ERROR to Scotland Circuit Court. 1. The evidence was not sufficient to prove either malice or want of probable cause. The weight of evidence is decidedly the other way; therefore a new trial should have been granted. 2. Plaintiff’s own statement to Hickman, Riney not being present, was illegal evidence. He could not in that way make evidence for himself. 3. Riney’s evidence before the justice ought to have been admitted. The question was not what Vanlandingham swore, but whether what he swore was true. If the two Andersons and Rice were not present at the alleged conversation, then no one was…
1Opinion of the CourtNapton, J.
Vanlandingham brought his action against Riney for a malicious prosecution, and obtained a verdict and judgment.
The ground work of this action originated in a suit between Riney and one Lowen, in which suit Lowen was the plaintiff. Upon the trial of this suit of Lowen vs.- Riney, Vanlandingham was examined as a witness, and testified that Riney, shortly after the affray between him and Lowen, had said to him : “Bill, I have whipped the old stud ; I have whipped him like damnation,” meaning thereby that said Riney had whipped said Lowen. This conversation Vanlandingham said took place at the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Lessee of Packer v. GonsalusSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1815
3Cited by2 opinions
- Calkins v. EngleMissouri Court of Appeals · 1927
- Crowther v. GibsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1854