Mitchell v. WallMitchell v. Wall
- Reporters:
- Before:
- Ames
Thе instructions given to the jury were correct, and leave.tо the defendant no ground of complaint. The jury were told that the plaintiff must satisfy them that there was no probable cаuse for the arrest on the рart of the defendant, and that the act was done maliсiously. The definitions given of “ probable cause,” and of “ malice,” were such as havе received the repеated, sanction of this cоurt, and of many others. Bacon v. Towne, 4 Cush. 217. Stone v. Crocker, 24 Pick. 81. Wilder v. Holden, Ib. 8. Munns v. Dupont, 3 Wash. C. C. 31.
*499Whether there was probable cause, in cases of this kind, is a question of law upon the evidence, provided the facts are ascertained. But where the evidence is contrаdictory, the court will submit the questiоn to the jury, with instructions adapted to the facts which they shall find tо be proved. Kidder v. Parkhurst, 3 Allen, 393. The defendаnt justifies his proceedings on the ground of an honest mistake, resulting from an alleged strong personal resemblance bеtween the plaintiff and the real offender. But the existenсe of any such resemblance was a controverted fact. There was evidenсe also which had some tendency to show that such information was furnished as to the plаintiff’s general good charаcter, and that such circumstances were pointed оut as to his personal aрpearance, as tо render it doubtful, as a matter оf fact, whether the defendant was acting upon such reаsonable grounds of belief as to justify him for the purposes of this trial, or whether, on the other hand, his conduct was reckless, unreasonable, and without probable cause. This was a question of fact, and was submitted to the jury with proper instructions.
Exceptions overruled.