143 Mass. 228 | Mass. | 1887
1, The malicious prosecution alleged in the second count was for fraudulezztly evading the payment of fare by leaving a car without having paid it. The evidence in the case at bar was that the plaintiff was arrested before he attempted to leave the car, and it also would have warranted a finding that the conductor who made the complaint believed the plaintiff’s story, azzd did not believe that the plaintiff was attempting a fraudulent evasion of any sort. There was evidence, therefore, that the complaint was made without probable cause. Krulevitz v. Eastern Railroad, 140 Mass. 573.
2. The conductor did not arrest the plaintiff at once, nor did he arrest. him at all in person, but, when the tz-ain reached Salem, pointed him out to other officers, who made the arrest at
¡Exceptions overruled.