Brailey v. Williams

Cuyahoga Circuit Court

Brailey v. Williams

32 Ohio C.C. Dec. 230, 17 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 462, 1911 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 340

DecidedJune 2, 1911

StatusPublished

This text of 32 Ohio C.C. Dec. 230 (Brailey v. Williams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Cuyahoga Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brailey v. Williams, 32 Ohio C.C. Dec. 230, 17 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 462, 1911 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 340 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

HENRY, J.

In the action below, for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff prevailed. The trial court granted plaintiff’s first request to charge:

“If the defendant instituted the criminal prosecution in question with any other motive than to cause the punishment of the plaintiff for a breach of the criminal law, it would constitute malicious prosecution.”

This was error; an ulterior motive, though it was malicious, was not the only requisite element of malicious prosecution.

The court refused to permit the plaintiff to be asked on cross-examination whether he had not been able to borrow money within a month or two after the criminal prosecution; and, whether he had not in another action admitted that his discharge from employment was due to some other cause than said prosecution. A majority of the court are of opinion that these inquiries were.germane to his complaint of injury to his business credit and standing, and should have been allowed. For these errors the judgment is reversed.

Marvin and Winch, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HENRY, J.

In the action below, for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff prevailed. The trial court granted plaintiff’s first request to charge:

“If the defendant instituted the criminal prosecution in question with any other motive than to cause the punishment of the plaintiff for a breach of the criminal law, it would constitute malicious prosecution.”

This was error; an ulterior motive, though it was malicious, was not the only requisite element of malicious prosecution.

The court refused to permit the plaintiff to be asked on cross-examination whether he had not been able to borrow money within a month or two after the criminal prosecution; and, whether he had not in another action admitted that his discharge from employment was due to some other cause than said prosecution. A majority of the court are of opinion that these inquiries were.germane to his complaint of injury to his business credit and standing, and should have been allowed. For these errors the judgment is reversed.

Marvin and Winch, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 Ohio C.C. Dec. 230, 17 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 462, 1911 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 340, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brailey-v-williams-ohcirctcuyahoga-1911.