Case ID: nc_26/html/0042-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Daniel, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HANNAH LOCKE vs. ROBERT GIBBS.
    One may recover damages in an action on the case for a malicious prosecution of his slave.
    Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Brunswick county, at Fall Term, 1843, his Honor Judge Battle presiding.
    This was an action on the case, brought by.the plaintiff against the defendant to recover damages, which she alleged that she had sustained by the malicious prosecution of her negro slaves, in consequence of which she had been deprived of their services, and put to costs in paying their jail fees. The defendant objected that the action could not be sustained, but the court held differently. The jury, under the charge of the court, found a verdict for the plaintiff, and from the judgment rendered thereon the defendant appealed.
    
      Strange for the plaintiff.
    No counsel for the defendant in this court.
   Daniel, J.

We must take the case to mean, that the defendant prosecuted the plaintiff’s slaves, without having any probable cause or reason to do so ; for, if he had probable cause, he would not be liable to this action, although lie acted ever so maliciously. The defendant does not contend that he had probable cause. The inquiry, therefore, which the plaintiff sustained/was the consequence of the defendant’s doing a wrongful act, and an action on the case was her rightful remedy. This action lies against a person, for maliciously and without probable cause suing out a sion of bankruptcy, in consequence whereof the plaintiff was damaged in his trade and business. So it lies at the suit of the husband, for the expenses incurred in consequence of the malicious prosecution of his wife — the wife in law being the servant of the husband — and he was injured in defending her against the defendant’s improper prosecution. Smith v Hixon, 2 Stra. 977. Bul. N. P. 13. — .

The case now before us is in principle the same as the one last cited. The judgment must be affirmed.

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.'