Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-01-19

. )SteHDeT D, 1889.
WHERE IN AN ACTION FOR MALL
CIOUS PROSECUTION 1T WAS
PROVED THAT THE SUIT WHICH
WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN
MALICIOUS WAS COMPROMISED
AND DISMISSED, THIS WAS A
GOOD DEFENSE TO THE ACTION
FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION.
This was an action for malicious
prosecution. There was Judgment for
defendant and plaintiff appealed
The facts OF the case are sufficiently
shown in the opinion of the court
The court says:
This is an action for malicious prese-
cution. On the criminal action the
plaintiff alleged that the defendant had
emDezzled $500 Of plaintiffs money,
which was denied. The plaintiff In this
action was arrested under warrent,
ana he alleges that 1t was done mali
clously, and without probable cause.
The defendant AYERS, in his answer.
mat the plaintiff prevailed on the de-
1endant to let the matter DROP which
was not done vountar ily by the dcfen-
uant; on the contrary. there was no
lrlal by the consent and at the pro-
curement of the plaintiff" and that he
paid some Of the costs which had ac-
crued. The jury rendered a verdict on
the first, second, and fourth issues,
IN Favor OF the PLAINTIFF. The third
Issue. did the plaintiff compromise
SAID action with the defendant, and
hgree to and consent to the ending of
the action before ]. P. Philips, justice
or the Deace?" was answered Eyes"
hfter the evidence was heard The
above quotation from the answer, first
above copied, we think, raised an ,mpor-
tant issue. and was not merely an
evldentiary fact, as insisted by the
Diainuf, and was properly submitted
70 the jury. 1t Is n settled rule that,
before an action like the present. to
recover damages. can be maintained,
The criminal action must have ter
minated In some way, either by mol.
pros, verdict or quashing etc. When
however. the termination has been in
duced and brought about by the dcfen-
dant he cannot maintain an action for
manages. where a MOL pros. As en-
tered by the procurement of the party
prosecuted. or by his consent or by
COMPROMISE. such party cannot have
nm action for malicious prosecution"
In the present case the Jury have
SAID that the PLAINTIFF did compromise
said action with the defendant and
agree to and consent to tire ending of
the action before the Justice of the
peace In consequence of this fact tho
action was dismissed The fact settled
by tho answer to the third Issue brings
the case under the exception above re-
1erred to- and deprives the plaintiff of
right of action Affirmed.
CHICAGO CITY r. co. ". AMBER
SON.
Supreme Court of Illinois. October
1889.
IN AN ACTION FOR PERSONAL IN
JURIES THE JURY MAY CON
sIDER PLAINTIFFS PAIN AND
SUFFERING IN CONNECTION
WITH HER INJURIES.
THE ONLY N1DNTAL PAIN THEY
SHOULD CONSIDER rs THAT
WHICH is THE DIRECT AND
NECESSARY RESULT OF THE
PHYSICAL PAIN SUFFERED.
This was an action for personal IN
1uries by Sophia Anderson against the
defendant Street Railway Company
Inc piaintiff was sitting as a passenger
IN the front end of one of the defen-
dants electric cars, and when the car
attempted to pass n wagon loaded with
lumber, going the same way MS the car
the lumber, which projected, struck
plaintiff In the back and Injured her.
The lower court gave Judgment for
plalntlff and the company appealed.
The court says:
Objection is made to appellee's in
struction number IA, because thereby
the jury were told that in estimating
her damages they might in copnectinn
with her personal injuries, take into
consideration her pain and differing. If
any are proven. undergone by her in
consequence of her injuries, IL any are
proved: and the criticism INDUCED in
IS that thereby the jury were permitted
10 allow damages for any mental pain
and suffering by her The mental pain
that comes from the contemplation Of
a. MANNED body and the humiliation of
gong through life in crippled con-
ditlon 1t too remote to be considered an
eiement of DANA ges. The mental pain
Ihat may be considered and allowed for
sn INNS clase OF cases is such as is the
d1rect result or concnnitant of the nhv
sical pain suffered Mental pain Is NJ
ways attendant upon severe physical
paln,-such as the relation of mind and
body,-and the mental pain that 10 The
oirect and necessary result of the phy-
slcal pain, but not otherwise. is n pro-
per element of damages in personal in
Jury cases. The Instructions violated
no rule of law regarding the element
or pain, either mental or physical. sur
Tered by an injured person. Affirmed.
Arrest Of Horse Thief.
F. Hodgeman reported last night
that his stable rear A. r,,,,, e,...,