Grohmann v. Kirschman
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 123, Jan. T., 1894, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Berks Co., Dec. T., 1891, No. 17, on verdict for plaintiff. Trespass for malicious prosecution and false imprisonment.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 123, Jan. T., 1894, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Berks Co., Dec. T., 1891, No. 17, on verdict for plaintiff. Trespass for malicious prosecution and false imprisonment. Plaintiff’s statement was as follows: “ That the defendant maliciously, illegally, oppressively, and without probable cause, being at the time hereinafter stated an alderman of the 9th ward, in the city of Reading, Berks county, in the state of Pennsylvania, to wit: On the 17th day of June, A. D. 1891, being a Wednesday, did authorize, order and direct his constable, one George Miller, serving at that time…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Fell,
Upon the trial of an action for false imprisonment testimony was admitted for the plaintiff to show what had been said by the trial judge in the quarter sessions in submitting the case to the jury. The offer was to prove want of probable cause, and that the prosecution was groundless. The testimony was to the effect that the judge directed a verdict of acquittal and instructed the jury to hold the prosecutor liable for costs.
It was competent for the plaintiff to prove that the prosecu*203tion was ended, and that he had been acquitted of the charge. This was properly…
2Cited by16 opinions
- Basile v. Township of SmithDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2010
- MacDonald v. SchroederSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
- Siegel v. Netherlands Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
- Mielke Ex Rel. Mielke v. RodeNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1929
- Mihalyik v. KleinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.