(Download) "Puutio v. Roman" by Supreme Court of Montana # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Puutio v. Roman
- Author : Supreme Court of Montana
- Release Date : January 02, 1926
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 57 KB
Description
Malicious Prosecution ? Complaint ? Sufficiency ? Malice ? Want of Probable Cause ? Proving Negative ? Slight Evidence Sufficient ? Directed Verdict ? Rebuttal Testimony ? Admissibility. Directed Verdict ? When Improper. 1. A case should never be withdrawn from the jury unless the conclusion necessarily follows, as a matter of law, that recovery cannot be had upon any view which can reasonably be taken of the facts which the evidence tends to establish. Same ? Motion in Effect Demurrer to Plaintiffs Evidence. 2. A motion for a directed verdict in favor of defendant is in effect a demurrer to the plaintiffs evidence; it admits as true all material facts in evidence which tend to establish plaintiffs cause of action, with every legitimate inference that may be drawn from them, whether such facts be produced by the plaintiff or the defendant, they to be viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Same ? What Insufficient to Warrant Granting of Motion. 3. On motion of defendant for a directed verdict, the fact that the testimony in behalf of the defense pleaded is uncontradicted does not justify the granting of the motion, if the inferences to be drawn from it are open to different conclusions by reasonable men. Malicious Prosecution ? Complaint ? Sufficiency. 4. Under the rule that an action for malicious prosecution lies though the accusation made the basis of the action did not charge the commission of a crime, provided the necessary elements of such an action are present, held, that a complaint alleging that the defendant filed a complaint in a justices court charging plaintiff with the "crime" of eloping with defendants son and enticing - Page 106 him away from his home, thereby causing her arrest and imprisonment in the county jail, etc., stated a cause of action for malicious prosecution. Same ? Proving Want of Probable Cause ? Slight Evidence Sufficient. 5. To prove want of probable cause for the institution of a criminal proceeding, i.e., want of reasonable ground for suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a reasonably prudent and cautious man in the belief that the accused is guilty of the offense charged against him, is to prove a negative and slight evidence is sufficient for that purpose. Same ? Malice Inferable from Want of Probable Cause. 6. Malice in the institution of a malicious prosecution may be inferred from a want of probable cause, and where defendant made false statements to the county attorney in his effort to have a complaint drawn and a warrant issued for the arrest of plaintiff, such fact is material as reflecting upon the issues of malice and want of probable cause. Same ? Procurement of Warrant for Arrest by False Statements to County Attorney ? Effect. 7. Where defendant in an action for malicious prosecution made false statements to the county attorney to induce him to act, he cannot escape liability by insisting that it was that officer, and not he, who was responsible for setting in motion the machinery of the law. Directed Verdict ? Showing of Nominal Damages Recoverable Sufficient to Defeat Motion. 8. Where plaintiff makes out a case for nominal damages, it is sufficient to defeat a motion for a directed verdict in favor of defendant. Trial ? Evidence ? Plaintiff Anticipating Defense ? Rebuttal ? Admissibility. 9. Whether, where plaintiff in his case in chief by his evidence anticipates the defense pleaded, he should, after defendant has introduced his evidence, be permitted to introduce rebuttal testimony is largely within the discretion of the trial court, but he should be permitted to do so if he was unable to anticipate every matter which was disclosed by the defense. - Page 107