Swaim v. . Stafford
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Stokes County at Spring Term 1844,- his Honor Judge' Dick presiding. This was an action on the case, for malicious prosecution. The evidence was precisely the same’as in the preceding case of Antoinette Swaim against the same defendant,-except that no witness stated that the present plaintiff was seen with- any ribbon in- her hand while in the store of the defendant.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Stokes County at Spring Term 1844,- his Honor Judge' Dick presiding. This was an action on the case, for malicious prosecution. The evidence was precisely the same’as in the preceding case of Antoinette Swaim against the same defendant,-except that no witness stated that the present plaintiff was seen with- any ribbon in- her hand while in the store of the defendant. She \vas seen on the succeeding Sunday wearing a ribbon simi-' lar in appearance to- those alleged by the defendant to have been stolen.- His Honor instructed the jury, that in the o-'…
1Opinion of the CourtDaNiel, J.
There was no evidence in this cause, that the plaintiff ever had in her hands the defendant’s ribbons. Hartman in his evidence states, that when he saw Antoinette Swaim in the defendant’s store, this plaintiff was then at the other end of the counter. Hartman on the next Sunday saw the plaintiff wearing a new belt ribbon; and he, on the Tuesday or Wednesday after, mentioned to the defendant, that the ribbons he had seen on the Sunday before resembled, or Were similar in color to, the defendant’s. If it was probable from all the faats and circumstances in the cause, that the defendant might…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Jones v. Wilmington & Weldon RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1899