Case ID: minn_89/html/0228-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

NAPOLEON RAMGREN v. OTIS STAPLES.
    
    May 8, 1903.
    Nos. 13,399—(55).
    Action in the district court for Washington county to recover $2,500 for malicious prosecution. The case was tried, together with three other actions of similar character based upon the same acts instituted respectively by Conrad, N. E., and Axel Ramgren against the same defendant, before Williston, J., and a jury, which in each case rendered a verdict in favor of defendant. From an order denying a joint motion for a new trial, plaintiffs appealed.
    Affirmed.
    
      Gjertsen, Rand & Lund, for appellants.
    
      J. N. Searles, for respondent.
    
      
       Reported in 94 N. W. 1135.
    
   PER CURIAM.

In an action for malicious prosecution for procuring an indictment against the plaintiff here for receiving stolen property, defendant had a verdict; and it is insisted that a new trial should be had for the reason that the trial court erred in refusing to give specific instructions to the jury defining what constituted want of probable cause and proof of malice on tbe part of tbe prosecutor (defendant here).

Tbe instructions of tbe court in its general charge were exceedingly full and clear, and accurately stated tbe law as previously laid down in several decisions of this court, wbicb included every material element of tbe subject involved, so far as properly embraced in tbe requests wbicb were refused. Tbe trial court did not, and was not bound to, adopt tbe requests denied, where tbe law therein contained bad been, as on this trial, accurately stated in its general instructions.

Tbe order appealed from is affirmed.