Monroe v. Maples
Supreme Court of Connecticut
ActioN of the case; declaring, that on or about the 1st of August A. D. 1788, the defendants in Montville, did combine together, and maliciously conspire to injure and destroy tbe plaintiff’s property and reputation, and did falsely and cor-rnptly accuse tbe plaintiff of having feloniously contrived and conspired with Joshua Valet, James Ohappel, and Lydia.his wife, and Sarah Monroe, to commit a secret assault on the body of Max*cia Maples, and her to imprison for four…
Read the full summary
ActioN of the case; declaring, that on or about the 1st of August A. D. 1788, the defendants in Montville, did combine together, and maliciously conspire to injure and destroy tbe plaintiff’s property and reputation, and did falsely and cor-rnptly accuse tbe plaintiff of having feloniously contrived and conspired with Joshua Valet, James Ohappel, and Lydia.his wife, and Sarah Monroe, to commit a secret assault on the body of Max*cia Maples, and her to imprison for four hours, and in pursuance of said wicked combination aforesaid, the defendants did in the name of said Marcia, make and exhibit…
1Opinion of the Court
If this is to be considered as an action upon the case for a malicious prosecution, the plaintiff hath not shown that he was acquitted, but that he was convicted. If as an action for *555tbe injury done bim by tbe defendants’ false swearing and perjury, it is not brought upon tbe statute, nor witbin tbe time limited by law; and it would be of dangerous consequence to admit actions of tbis nature to be against witnesses after so great a lapse of time.
2Cited by4 opinions
- Brown v. RandallSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1869
- Frisbie v. MorrisSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1903
- Moulton v. BeecherNew York Supreme Court · 1876
- Paint Products Co. v. Minwax Co., Inc.District Court, D. Connecticut · 1978