Delany v. Lindsay
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 94, Oct. T., 1910, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Bucks Co., Oct. T., 1908, No. 2, for defendant non obstante veredicto in case of Harry M. Delany v. A. W. Lindsay. Trespass for malicious prosecution. Before Stout, P. J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. At the trial the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff for $100. Subsequently the court entered judgment for defendant non obstante veredicto.'
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Henderson, J.,
The defendant instituted a criminal prosecution against the plaintiff for larceny charging him with having stolen a quantity of straw. At the trial in the quarter sessions the presiding judge instructed the jury that they should acquit the defendant and a verdict of not guilty was accordingly rendered. This action was brought to recover *28damages for malicious prosecution because of the plaintiff’s arrest in the criminal proceeding. It is a familiar principle that an acquittal or lawful discharge of the defendant in a criminal case is prima facie evidence of want of…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Baker v. MortonSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- McClafferty v. PhilpSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1892
- Schofield v. FerrersSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1864
- Beihofer v. LoeffertSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- Prough v. EntrikenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1849
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Altman v. Standard Refrig. Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
- Lentz v. RaumSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
- Trautman v. WillockSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
- Herscovitz v. LinderSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
- Darrah v. Oakland Motor Car Co., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1926