Heide v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 9, June T., 1909, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Butler Co., June T., 1909, No. 9, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Jacob Heide v. The Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company. Trespass to recover damages for malicious prosecution. The opinion of the Superior Court states the case. The court refused binding instructions for defendant. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $300. Defendant appealed.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 9, June T., 1909, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Butler Co., June T., 1909, No. 9, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Jacob Heide v. The Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company. Trespass to recover damages for malicious prosecution. The opinion of the Superior Court states the case. The court refused binding instructions for defendant. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $300. Defendant appealed. Error assigned was in refusing binding instructions for defendant.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Henderson, J.,
To sustain the plaintiff’s action it was necessary that he show malice and want of probable cause. This he proceeded to do by offering evidence tending to prove that he was not guilty of the offence charged in the complaint and that when he was brought before the magistrate by the constable who arrested him no witnesses were called against him and he was discharged without a hearing. Evidence was also offered from which it might be inferred that the prosecutor and other employees of the defendant co-operating with him caused the arrest of the plaintiff to enable them…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Bernar v. DunlapSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1880
- Barhight v. TammanySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- Fry v. WolfSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
3Cited by2 opinions
- Arye v. DicksteinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
- Weinstein v. GelishanskySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1917