Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-05-14
COURT DECISIONS.
Notes of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are of Interest to
Our People.
DIGESTED BY W. B. MARTIN.
Exclusively for Virginian-Pi
JONES V. MORRIS.

Supreme Court of Appeal of Virginia.
March 80, 1899.
IN A SUIT FOR MALICIOUS PROSE
CUTION ADVICE OF COUNSEL is
NO DEFENCE IF DEFENDANT
HAD NOT MADE a FULL DIS
CLOSURE OF THE CASE TO HIS
COUNSEL.
WHERE A PERSON WAS TRIED
FOR LARCENY BEFORE A PO-
LICE JUSTICE AND ACQUITTED,
SUCH JUDGMENT Is A FINAL
END OF THE PROSECUTION. AL
THOUGH THERE WE'RE IRREGU-
LARITIES IN THE WARRANT
AND THE TRIAL.
Jones sued out warrant OF arrest in
Newport News against Morris, charg-
ing him with larceny. Morris was ar
rested in Newport News. carried by n
policeman TO Richmond, and there tried
before the police justice OF that city
and acquitted. He then brought this
suit against Jones for malicious pros
ecution. There was verdict and judg-
ment for the plaintiff for $500 In the
lower court, and the defendant APP
peRled.
Now. the contention Of the plaintiff
In error is that inasmuch as no war
rant was issued by the justice In New
port News authorizing the conveyance
of the prisoner to Richmond for trial,
the police justice of the last mentioned
city acquired no jurisdiction over the
accused. ana the offence alleged to have
been committed by him; that the pro.
cecdings before the justice in Rich
mond We're wholly without Jurisdiction,
me Judgment rendered by him Il null
lily. the prosecution instituted not yer
ended. ana therefore an essential re-
uuiSitc 10 an action for malicious prose-
cution absent in this case
1t may be conceded for ,he sake or
argument that the proceeding before
Justice Crutchfield was irregular. and
mat, upon objection taken by Morris.
an adverse Judgment would have been
erroneous and subject to reversal upon
writ of error. The fact remains that
The police Justice of Richmond hao
ample. indeed exclusive. Jurisdiction or
The offence. The accused was present
IN court. made no objection to the
trial and If judgment had been rem
dered against him. would have been
held to have waived any irregularity
The evidence WAS fully presented to
the trial court, which very properly
rendered judgment in favor of the
accused. That was a final end to the
prosecution for the alleged offence.
we are of opinion that these assign
1nen;s OF error are insufficient. For
like reasons we are of opinion that the
objection to the form of the warrant
cannot be maintained.
The OBJECTION taken TO the first in
struction is To the closing sentence. in
which the court states to the jury tina,
IF they believe from the evidence that
the defendant aid not make II full, cor
rect and honest disclosure of all such
facts 10 his counsel. but that he in
stituted the criminal prosecution from
"a liked determination of his own. rath-
or than from the opinion of counsel
tnen SUCH advice can avail nothing in
TINS suit The objection is-ti44+t 4tr-r-t-
Is no evidence to support this state
meni Of the law. The defence chiefly
reiicu on before the jury is. that the
defendant had made full disclosure
OF the facts connected with his trans
action to his counsel and had acted
upon his advice. There is evidence. 1t
seems To liz, that there was a predeter
mined intention upon the part OF the
piaihtiif III error To institute this action,
ana that the real question submitted
To counsel was as to the iurisdiction If
the justice of the city of Newport News
TO decide 1t. We cannot saw that tho
evidence was insufficient TO warrant
the court IN submitting to the jury the
given.
AS we have already seen. the owl
dence affords "A strong ground for the
opinion that plaintiff in error was no
tuated by fixed purpose to prosecute
the defendant in error. and it by no
means satisfactorily appears that a
full disclosure was made of the circum.
stances To either of his attorneys
Affirmed.