98 So. 416 | La. | 1923
This is an appeal from a judgment rejecting a demand for damages. The cause of action was that an employee— the purchasing agent — of the defendant made affidavit against the plaintiff, accusing her of having stolen five yards of cloth from the company, and caused her to be arrested and imprisoned. She was acquitted of the charge, and avers that it was made maliciously and without probable cause.
The circumstances which caused the plaintiff to be suspected of the theft are not dis
We do not know just how far she was vindicated by the evidence offered in the criminal prosecution. It may be that the proof was lacking only in the matter of a reasonable doubt. The fact that the woman was acquitted is not, of itself, proof that the prosecution was inspired by malice, or was ■without probable cause. Grant v. Deuel, 3 Rob. 17, 38 Am. Dec. 228; Wells v. Johnston, 52 La. Ann. 713, 27 South. 185; Sandoz v. Veazie, 106 La. 216, 30 South. 767; Covington v. Roberson, 111 La. 336, 35 South. 586; Sundmaker v. Gaudet, 113 La. 890, 37 South. 865.
We concur in the ruling of the civil district court that the prosecution was not malicious or without probable cause.
The judgment is affirmed at appellant’s cost.