Billingsley v. Maas
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the superior court of Douglas county: Charles Smith, Judge. This was an action to recover damages for alleged malicious prosecution.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the superior court of Douglas county: Charles Smith, Judge. This was an action to recover damages for alleged malicious prosecution. The complaint in effect charged that defendants, maliciously and without probable cause, caused the arrest of plaintiff on the criminal charge of embezzlement ; that the action was dismissed for want of prosecution; that plaintiff was injured in person, reputation, feelings, and business standing, and was compelled to pay out $50 to secure his discharge. Damages were laid at $5,000. Defendants answered, admitting the arrest and…
1Opinion of the CourtMaRshall, J.
The following language of the judge’s charge was excepted to: “ And the question in the trial, as to that twenty-five dollars, would be whether it was paid over with fraudulent intent on the part of the plaintiff in this action.” It is argued that this language was used in such a way as to lead the jury to believe that the turning question, or one of them, on the trial of this action, was whether plaintiff in fact fraudulently paid the money to Osborne. A careful reading of the whole paragraph of the charge in which the language excepted to occurs fails to impress us that the defendants were,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Stewart v. SonnebornSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
- People v. RankinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937
- Sutton v. McConnellWisconsin Supreme Court · 1879
- Womack v. FudikarSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1895
- State ex rel. Bell v. HuftySupreme Court of Louisiana · 1856
3Cited by4 opinions
- King v. Apple River Power Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1907
- Haas v. PowersWisconsin Supreme Court · 1907
- Kness v. KommesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1928
- Morrison v. Superior Water, Light & Power Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1908