Statement of claim for mali cious prose 2. The defendant is a manufacturer of agricultural implements, and resides at 3. On or about the 24th day of May, 1877, the defendant cution, &c. gave the plaintiff into the custody of a police constable upon a A criminal charge must have been made. The criminal charge must have been dismissed. Or conviction quashed. Any act by which the criminal law is set in motion against another will not amount to a malicious prosecution. To give a man into the custody of a police constable on a charge of felony might be a false imprisonment; it would not be a malicious prosecution. "There can be no malicious prosecution until the parties come before a Court or a judicial officer." (Per Willes, J., in Austin v. Dowling, L. R. 5 C. P. 540, which see for the distinction between false imprisonment and malicious prosecution.) 2nd. The charge must have been false in fact, and so determined by the proper criminal Court before which it came. It is not necessary that the first Court before which the charge came should have decided it in the plaintiff's favour; it is enough if a Court of Appeal has given a decision in his favour, so that the ultimate determination declares the falseness of the charge; but subject to this, a man may be perfectly innocent of a charge that has been made against him, and prepared with abundant evidence to prove the fact, yet if a judgment of a competent Court remains on record, he cannot proceed with his action for malicious prosecution. The reversal of any conviction made upon the charge is a condition precedent to his right to sue in all cases save one. It has been decided that a malicious exhibition of articles of the peace against another, (which is of course a species of prosecution,) supported by a false oath of threats having been used, may be made the foundation of an action for damages, although the accused person has been required to find sureties and been imprisoned for default. (Steward v. Gromett, Exception. L. J. 29 C. P. 170), and the reason of this exception from the general rule is that proceedings before justices in cases of the kind are generally ex parte, the accused has no means of controverting the charge, and the justices have little or no option to refuse to bind him over, when the person exhibiting the articles swears that he is in bodily fear. 3rd. The prosecution must be malicious, that is to say, instituted from any other motive than the simple desire of bringing to justice one whom you believe has committed a crime. (See Stevens v. Midland Rail. Co., 23 L. J. Ex. 328.) But "Malice alone is not sufficient to found the action, because a person actuated by the plainest malice may nevertheless have a justifiable reason for a prosecution." (Per Tindal, C. J., in Willans v. Taylor, 6 Bing. 186.) Where, however, the judge rules (for it is his province to determine this, the facts being found by the jury) that there is no reasonable or probable cause for the prosecution, the jury may from that infer malice. (Busst v. Gibbons, 30 L. J. Exch. 75.) 4th. The prosecution must have been without reasonable or probable cause. It is impossible to lay down any general rule as to what constitutes a want of reasonable or probable cause for a prosecution; but the facts of the particular case ought to be such as to satisfy a reasonable mind that the accuser had little or no ground for the proceeding but his desire to injure the accused, or that he acted in the matter recklessly and carelessly, not caring what mistake he might make, and forbearing to institute reasonable inquiries which would readily have removed any little suspicion that might attach to the accused. Evidence that the accuser did not himself amounts to. believe in the charge which he made is cogent evidence that he had no reasonable or probable cause; but from the most express malice merely the want of probable cause cannot be implied. (Turner v. Ambler, 10 Q. B. 252.) 5th. In order to recover damages in this action the plaintiff must show that he has suffered either in person, reputation, or pocket. Malice necessary. Want of reasonable and probable cause. What for mali false charge that the plaintiff had committed a felony, and Statement compelled him to go to a police station, and there caused him of claim to be imprisoned and to be kept in prison until the next day, when he was brought before a magistrate at the C. police court upon the said charge. 4. On the hearing of the said charge the defendant falsely and maliciously and without reasonable or probable cause appeared before the said police magistrate and charged the plaintiff with having feloniously embezzled certain moneys of the defendant. 5. The said police magistrate having heard the said charge, dismissed the same, and discharged the plaintiff out of custody, whereby the said prosecution was determined. 6. By reason of the premises the plaintiff has been injured in his reputation, and suffered pain of body and mind, and was prevented from attending to his business, and incurred expense in defending himself from the said charge, and in obtaining his release from the said imprisonment. The plaintiff claims £500 damages. Statement of Defence. a 1. The defendant admits that on the 24th of May, 1877, he gave the plaintiff into the custody of a police constable on charge of felony. 2. Prior to, at, and after the 1st of May, 1877, the plaintiff acted as the defendant's agent for the sale of the defendant's goods at York. 3. It was part of the plaintiff's duty to collect for the defendant all moneys due and owing to him in respect of the sale of the said goods, when received to enter the same as paid in certain books kept for that purpose, and forthwith to forward such moneys to the defendant without making any deductions therefrom. 4. On the 1st of May, 1877, the plaintiff as the defendant's cious prose cution. It is generally very easy to aver and prove sufficient damage to ground Evidence of the action, for it is seldom that the charge is not so scandalous as that the damage. mere preferring of it is not some injury to the plaintiff's reputation, and it almost always happens that the plaintiff is put to some expense in defending himself from it, which he can allege in his statement of claim, and in respect of which he can recover. Defence to agent received payment on behalf of the defendant of various bills amounting in the aggregate to £215. action for malicious prosecu tion. Counterclaim. Detinue. Reply. 5. The plaintiff did not enter in any of the books mentioned in the 3rd paragraph the fact of the receipt of the said moneys or any part of the same, nor did he forward to the defendant the said moneys or any part thereof. 6. On the 10th of May, 1877, the defendant wrote to the plaintiff inquiring if any of the bills mentioned in the 4th paragraph had yet been paid, and on the 12th of May, 1877, the plaintiff replied that they had not yet been paid, but that he hoped to receive them shortly. 7. On the 25th of May, 1877, the defendant discovered that the plaintiff had received on his behalf all the moneys mentioned in the 4th paragraph, and thereupon he gave the plaintiff into custody and preferred a charge of embezzlement in respect of the said sum of £215 against him, which are the grievances complained of in the 3rd and 4th paragraphs of the statement of claim. 8. The defendant denies that he acted therein maliciously, and says that he had reasonable and probable cause for the said imprisonment and the said prosecution. 9. The defendant does not admit the 6th paragraph of the statement of claim. And by way of counter-claim the defendant says:- day of, 1876, and the day of 1877, the defendant entrusted certain of his goods of the value of £400 to the plaintiff, to be sold by the plaintiff for the defendant, or to be returned to the defendant. 2. The plaintiff, although frequently required so to do, has never returned the said goods or accounted for the price thereof. The defendant claims a return of the said goods or the price and value thereof. Reply. The plaintiff joins issue upon the defence, except so far as it admits any part of the statement of claim. As to the counter-claim : 1. The plaintiff admits having received certain goods from the defendant, but denies that the terms upon which he re claim to action for ceived them are accurately stated in the counter-claim. The Reply to plaintiff received the goods for sale at an agricultural show at counterYork upon the joint account of the plaintiff and defendant, and as to such as might not be so sold, to return the same to certain premises at, which premises were occupied by defendant tion. as tenant to the plaintiff. 2. The plaintiff sold some of the goods at York, and duly accounted to the defendant for the proceeds. 3. The plaintiff duly returned such of the goods as were unsold to the said premises, and thereby the terms of the bailment to the plaintiff of the said goods were satisfied. 4. If the plaintiff was bound to return the unsold goods to the defendant, the plaintiff says that the return of them to the said premises was a return to the defendant. Joinder of Issue. The defendant joins issue on the plaintiff's reply. Action for Malicious Prosecution on a Charge of Misdemeanor before Justices and at Assizes. malicious prosecu 1. The plaintiff is a gentleman of independent means re- Another siding near R. The defendant is a farmer residing at near R. aforesaid. 2. In the month of October, 1876, two persons named respectively M. and S. filed petitions for liquidation of their affairs by arrangement or composition, pursuant to the Bankruptcy Act, 1869, in the county court of Warwickshire holden at 3. The defendant was a creditor upon the estates of M. and S., and he was appointed a trustee jointly with another creditor of M. and S. in the said liquidation proceedings. 4. The plaintiff was a creditor of M. and S., and on the 24th of 1877, forwarded to the defendant and his cotrustee his proof of debt duly sworn against the estates of M. and S. 5. On the of February, 1877, the defendant laid an information before, Esq., a justice of the peace for the county of W., charging the plaintiff with a misdemeanor under the 14th section of the 32 & 33 Vict. c. 62, viz., with claim for malicious prosecu tion. Claim for having wilfully, and with intent to defraud, made a false claim against the estates in liquidation of the said M. and S. malicious prosecu tion. 6. Upon such information the defendant procured the plaintiff to be summoned before the justices of the peace for the petty sessional division of R. aforesaid. The defendant appeared upon the hearing of the said information and summons and prosecuted the plaintiff in respect of the alleged offence. The plaintiff was committed by the said justices to take his trial at the ensuing W. assizes for the said alleged offence. 7. The said assizes were held on the 20th day of March, 1877, when the defendant caused a bill of indictment to be preferred against the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was put upon his trial for the alleged offence, but was acquitted. 8. The defendant laid the said information and procured the plaintiff to be summoned before the justices and committed for trial, and caused a bill of indictment to be preferred against the plaintiff as aforesaid falsely and maliciously and without reasonable or probable cause. 9. By reason thereof the plaintiff has been injured in his reputation and credit, and has suffered in mind and body, and has incurred expenses in defending himself and obtaining his acquittal. The plaintiff claims £1000 damages. Statement of Defence. 1. Save as hereinafter appears the defendant does not admit any of the allegations in the statement of claim. 2. By his proof in the matter of proceedings for liquidation by arrangement or composition with creditors instituted by H. M., sworn the 24th day of January, the plaintiff swore that the said H. M. was indebted to him in the sum of £400, whereas the said H. M. was then indebted to him in the sum of £300 only, and no more. 3. By the said proof the plaintiff claimed the sum of £100 as due from the said H. M. in respect of two bills of exchange for the sum of £50 each, drawn by one T. S., and accepted by the said H. M., and dated respectively the 9th of November, 1875. The said bills of exchange had respectively been cancelled when they became due and other bills of exchange for the |