Case Name: Cohen, Appellant, v. Rosa
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1918-03-02
Citations: 69 Pa. Super. 235
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 303
Parties: Cohen, Appellant, v. Rosa.
Judges: Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Head, Kephart, Trexler and Williams, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports
Volume: 69
Pages: 235–236

Head Matter:
Cohen, Appellant, v. Rosa.
Malicious prosecution — Charge—Damages—Review—New trial.
An order of the trial court refusing to grant a new trial after a verdict for the plaintiff of one dollar damages, in an action for malicious prosecution, will not be reversed, where in the opinion of the appellate court, the trial court might well have directed a verdict for the defendant, and where there is nothing in the record to suggest that the verdict was perverse or unwarranted.
Argued Nov. 15, 1917.
Appeal, No. 303, Oct. T., 1917, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Philadelphia Co., Sept. T., 1916, No. 1842, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Rose Cohen v. Generoso Rosa.
Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Head, Kephart, Trexler and Williams, JJ.
Affirmed.
Trespass to recover damages for malicious prosecution. Before Shoemaker, J.
Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $1. Plaintiff appealed.
Error assigned was refusal of new trial.
B. D. Oliersis, with him Clinton A. Bowers and Robert M. Bernstein, for appellant.
George C. Muhly, for appellee.
March 2, 1918:

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
The sole assignment of error relates to the refusal of the court below to grant a new trial after a verdict for the plaintiff of $1 damages, in an action in which the defendant is charged with instituting a malicious prosecution. Under the evidence adduced the court might well have directed a verdict for the defendant. There is no reversible error in the charge of the court as to the question of damages, nor anything to suggest that the verdict is perverse or unwarranted. We find nothing to warrant a retrial of this petty controversy.
The judgment is affirmed.