The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1883-04-09


Arthur C. Frost V. Henry 1. Holland.
The plaintiff was arrested upon the complaint Of
the defendant for passing counterfeit silver dol
lar. Upon examinat on before T. s. Commissioner
Rand he discharged, the coin proving 10 be gen
uine. The plaintiff thereupon brought this suit,
claiming that the prosecution by Holland was ma
lcious. The verdict was for the plaintiff for S4a3,
and the defendant filed exceptions.
Z Rescrlpt by Symonds, 1.-The method g proceed
by Commissioners Of the 2. 5. Circuit Court in
arresting imprisonng and bailing onenaSrs against
the laws of the United States il required TO be IN
conformity with the usual mode of process against
offenders in the state where they are found. ..
S. Rev. Stat. 10I4.
4 In this state committing magistrates are required
to keep a record of their proceeding5-K ;. chap.
49, "A; chap. 1913, IS Is, II. Thayer v. Common
wealth, IL Met. .. 1t was the public duty Of the
Commissioner to keep record Of such proceedings
as issuing warrants upon criminal complaints, inn
prisoning persons arrested admitting them TO bail
or diseharging them upon bearing Inc seai OF OIL
fee of such commissioner is recognized by the
statute U. S. Rev. Stat, l77o, In proving are
cord by copy under seal the courts recognize WITH
out proof the seal of state and Oh an courts
established by public statutes and by parity OF rea
son il would seem that no extanuous proof ought to
be required of the zeal of any department OF STATE
or public office established by law, and required OF
The papers which were received in evidence certl-
fed by the Commissioner with his offeial seal ana
signature as a copy Of the original record IN a
proceeding within his jurisdiction, were properly
authenticated and admissible without oath
In an action for malicious prosecution the want OF
probable cause will not be inferred from the mere
failure of the prosecutor, nor from q mere aequit-
tai upon trial but the weight of authority seems to
be in accordance with the ruling, that proof that
the plaintiff was discharged by the examining mag
istrate for want of probable cause TO DeleFe 1lii
guilty, makes przao fce case for the plalntlH IN
this respect, that the defendant is called upon
to offer proof to the contrary: Greenl ~. 400;
Am. Leading cases 268 Cooley on Iorts lo4.
The motion for new trial cannot prevail. The
plaintiff was prosecuted for a serious offence Tor
which heavy penalties provided. when In fact no
crime had been committed. The jury were ntg IN
fault in finding that the damages necessarily result
fuorf mn
nominal or triing, and 1t was Tor them 70 decloe
whether the rules of law relating TO TINS class
of actions the evidence afforded the defendant any
legal excuse for prosecuting the plaintiff for pass
ing counterfeit coin. when the TACT was the com
was genuine.
4 Motion and exceptions overruled.
Willard c. Low v. Inhabitants of Windham.
This is an action to recover damages for personal
injuries sustained by defect in the highway. The
verdict was for the plaintiff and the defendants
filed exceptions.
Rescript by Symonds Especial pleading IN de-
fence Is not required to raise the question OF the
sufficency insuiciency Of the notice OF tue IN
jury given by the plaintiff to the toWn II tne no
tice in this case could be upheld in all other re
spects it fails for want of specification OF the ma
ture of the PLAINTIFF injuries. 1t Is Impossible 70
hold that the words, Il shall claim damages for
injuries which received contain such spec1nea
ton They might possibly be construed to refer TO
bodily injuries as distinguished from damage to
property but we cannot regard the statutory re-
quirement of notice, specifying the nature OF ms
injuries - as fulfilled by notice TO the town that
the plaintiff has been injured in his person That
would be a construction opposed to the ordinary
force of the words ''to the common meaning OF the
language" Il. s., chap. 1, 4 /. nor has the law
been so understood administered since its enact
ment The exceptions TO the pro foT0sG ruling at
the trial must therefore be sustained.
Exceptions sustained.