Reel v. Martin
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 46, Oct. T., 1899, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Lancaster Co., April T., 1897, No. 12, on verdict for plaintiff. ■ Trespass.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 46, Oct. T., 1899, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Lancaster Co., April T., 1897, No. 12, on verdict for plaintiff. ■ Trespass. Before Brubaker, J. It appears from tire record and the evidence that defendant brought a criminal prosecution against plaintiff, charging him with larceny, the complaint before the justice being as follows: “William Martin, being duly affirmed, according to law, declares and says, that Samuel Reel, of said township, did, on or about the 16th day of May, 1894, and at divers other times before and since then, take from him, the said complainant,…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
William W. Porter, J.,
The first two assignments of error are to the refusal of the court to direct a verdict in favor of the defendant. The points of charge were based upon the allegation that'the complaint before the justice of the peace did not charge a crime, and that therefore the action for a malicious prosecution could not be sustained. The authorities cited by the defendant sustain the general principle, but the case of Stewart v. Thompson, 51 Pa. 158, determines the point against the defendant on the facts. There a distinction is drawn between a prosecution, founded upon a…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Reese v. HersheySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894
- Winters v. MowrerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894
- Stewart v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1866
- Phila. R. v. Alvord, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Chester County1889
3Cited by2 opinions
- Mellick v. Pennsylvania RailroadSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
- Rumsey v. ShawSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1904