Cheever v. Sweet
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort against Joseph L. Sweet, Eobert F. Simmons, James H. Healey, and John T. Healey, the last two doing business under the name of Healey Brothers, for malicious prosecution in procuring an indictment against the plaintiff to be found by the grand jury, upon the trial of which he was acquitted, charging him with breaking and entering a building occupied by that firm, with intent to steal certain jewelry manufactured by them, and with burning the building in the night-time.
Read the full summary
Tort against Joseph L. Sweet, Eobert F. Simmons, James H. Healey, and John T. Healey, the last two doing business under the name of Healey Brothers, for malicious prosecution in procuring an indictment against the plaintiff to be found by the grand jury, upon the trial of which he was acquitted, charging him with breaking and entering a building occupied by that firm, with intent to steal certain jewelry manufactured by them, and with burning the building in the night-time. At the trial in the Superior Court, Thompson, J., ruled that the plaintiff upon his evidence was not entitled to…
1Opinion of the CourtC. Allen, J.
If it be assumed, in favor of the plaintiff, that the defendants might properly be found upon the evidence to have instituted the prosecution against him, it was further incumbent on him to prove affirmatively that it was instituted maliciously and without probable cause; and it was for the court to determine' whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain this burden. Donnelly v. Daggett, 145 Mass. 314. That is to say, it was incumbent on the plaintiff to show affirmatively that the defendants had no reasonable ground to believe him guilty.
If it be further assumed, as a fact in the case,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Donnelly v. DaggettMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1887
3Cited by2 opinions
- Keefe v. JohnsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1939
- Shattuck v. SimondsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1906