Case ID: ohio-law-abs_1/html/0471-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "CHITTENDEN, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 484
    COLEMAN v. REED et al
    Ohio Appeals, First Dist., Hamilton County
    No. 2117.
    Decided May 18, 1923
    This opinion has not been published except in Abstract.
    MALICIOUS PROSECUTION — (1) Admissibility of evidence proving guilt of plaintiff under general issue — -(2) Necessity of specific charge of court as to what facts necesary to show malicious prosecution — (3) Failure of court to give further charges immaterial unless requested by party — (4) Minor inconsistencies between special charges.
    Attorneys — Minges & Jones, for Coleman; Amos P. Foster, for Reed et al.
   CHITTENDEN, J.

Epitomized Opinion

This was an action brought by Coleman for malicious prosecution against one Reed and the Methodist Book Concern in the Superior Court of Hamilton county. Coleman had been a trusted employee of the concern for more than 25 years. He was arrested for petit larceny upon the affidavit of one of the officers of the firm. Later he was indicted but his indictment was properly nollied upon the confession of the party who committed the larceny. The plaintiff then sued the defendant for malicious prosecution. During the trial Judge Robert S. Marx of the Superior Court of Cincinnati permitted the introduction of evidence as to the guilt of the plaintiff. As the trial resulted in a verdict for defendant, plaintiff prosecuted error.

1. In an action for malicious prosecution the guilt of the plaintiff may be established under the general issue notwithstanding his acquital.

2. In an action for malicious prosecution the court should specifically charge the jury what facts it found by them to be true would constitute probable cause for the prosecution.

3. Unless the action of the trial court is challenged in that respect or a request for further instructions made, the failure to charge more fully upon the subject is not reversible error.

4. Even though there might be some ine -isistency between special charges, yet unless it appears that the jury was misled by them, no prejudicial error is committed.