Fant v. McDaniel

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Fant v. McDaniel

3 S.C.L. 173

DecidedNovember 15, 1802

StatusPublished

This text of 3 S.C.L. 173 (Fant v. McDaniel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fant v. McDaniel, 3 S.C.L. 173 (S.C. 1802).

Pincite

Opinion

This was an action on the case for a malicious prosecution; tried ja Fairfield district, before Ramsay, J. The jury found for the plaintiff; and the defendant applied to this court for a new trial, on the grounds : 1. That a copy of the indictment had been improperly admitted in evidence, in lieu of the original record. 2. That evidence of probable cause was 'improperly excluded, be-pause it was not specially pleaded.

But the court resolved : 1, That in this action a copy of the indictment charged to be prosecuted maliciously, duly certified by the clerk of court, authorized to keep the same indictment, shall be admissible evidence, and the original need not be produced,, 2. That in order to entitle a defendant in this action to shew that he had probable cause for prosecuting the plaintiff, he must state puch cause in his plea, and disclose the grounds on which he paeans to rely in his defence. Cro. Eliz. 134. 6 Mod. 216. 2 ,Esp. Dig. 533. So the motion for a new trial was refuse.

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

This was an action on the case for a malicious prosecution; tried ja Fairfield district, before Ramsay, J. The jury found for the plaintiff; and the defendant applied to this court for a new trial, on the grounds : 1. That a copy of the indictment had been improperly admitted in evidence, in lieu of the original record. 2. That evidence of probable cause was 'improperly excluded, be-pause it was not specially pleaded.

But the court resolved : 1, That in this action a copy of the indictment charged to be prosecuted maliciously, duly certified by the clerk of court, authorized to keep the same indictment, shall be admissible evidence, and the original need not be produced,, 2. That in order to entitle a defendant in this action to shew that he had probable cause for prosecuting the plaintiff, he must state puch cause in his plea, and disclose the grounds on which he paeans to rely in his defence. Cro. Eliz. 134. 6 Mod. 216. 2 ,Esp. Dig. 533. So the motion for a new trial was refuse.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 S.C.L. 173, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fant-v-mcdaniel-sc-1802.