McNeese v. Herring
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Titus. This was an action fora malicious prosecution. Tiie appellant, who was plaintiff below, was prosecuted for a misdemeanor by tiie defendant Hemug, before tiie defendant Turner, a justice of the peace. lie was convicted, fined ten dollars, and committed to prison for one day and until the fine and costs should he paid. The defendant Witliee was tiie sheriff of tiie county who executed the mittimus issued by tiie justice for the imprisonment of the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Titus. This was an action fora malicious prosecution. Tiie appellant, who was plaintiff below, was prosecuted for a misdemeanor by tiie defendant Hemug, before tiie defendant Turner, a justice of the peace. lie was convicted, fined ten dollars, and committed to prison for one day and until the fine and costs should he paid. The defendant Witliee was tiie sheriff of tiie county who executed the mittimus issued by tiie justice for the imprisonment of the plaintiff. Tiie fine and costs remaining unpaid, tiie plaintiff remained in prison for several days and until released on habeas…
1Opinion of the CourtWheeler, J.
No evidence appears to be offered by the plaintiff to prove that the prosecution was malicious or without probable cause. Títere was no ruling of the court which prevented the plaintiff from introducing such evidence. And without proof of tiie want of probable cause and malice this action cannot be maintained. (Griffin v. Chubb, 7 Tex. R.) There is no error in the judgment, and it is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by1 opinion
- Flanagan v. BoggessTexas Supreme Court · 1876