Case ID: ill-app_205/html/0414-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Annie Sasek, Appellee, v. Joseph F. Triska, trading as Joseph F. Triska & Company, and John S. Jurik, Appellants.
    Gen. No. 22,884.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Receiving stolen goods-—what can be subject of complaint for. Trees are bought and sold for planting as any other property is bought and sold, and can properly be made the subject-matter of a complaint charging a defendant with receiving stolen property.
    2. Malicious prosecution, § 74
      
      —when evidence is sufficient to show probable cause and want of malice. In an action by a woman for damages for malicious prosecution of a criminal case for receiving stolen trees, where it appeared that trees similar to those owned by defendants were found on plaintiff’s place and positively identified by the nurseryman who sold them to defendants; that plaintiff’s son claimed to have bought them from a strange man going by in a wagon for about one-seventh of their actual value; that defendants were informed by police officers that plaintiff and her son, whom they had never before seen or heard of had bad reputations, and, acting on their advice, preferred charges against plaintiff, evidence held sufficient to show probable cause and want of malice.
    
      Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Edward M. Mangan, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.
    Reversed with finding of fact.
    Opinion filed April 30, 1917.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Annie Sasek, plaintiff, against Joseph F. Triska, trading as Joseph F. Triska & Company, and John S. Jurik, defendants, for damages for malicious prosecution of a criminal case for receiving stolen goods. From a judgment for plaintiff for five hundred dollars, defendants appeal.
    Jennings & Fifer, for appellants.
    Lewis F. Jacobson and Daniel L. Madden, for appellee; R. C. Merrick, of counsel.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, came topic and section number.
    
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Malicious prosecution, § 74 —what must he proved in action for. In an action for malicious prosecution, it is essential that malice be shown on the part of the defendant who started the prosecution, and a want of probable cause for believing that the plaintiff was guilty of the offense charged, and want of such probable cause is not shown by the acquittal of the plaintiff.