Case Name: Benjamin Parr, Respondent, v. Noah Loder, Jr., Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1903
Citations: 85 A.D. 96
Docket Number: 
Parties: Benjamin Parr, Respondent, v. Noah Loder, Jr., Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 85
Pages: 96–106

Head Matter:
Benjamin Parr, Respondent, v. Noah Loder, Jr., Appellant.
Malicious prosecution—arrest on a charge of stealing a commission to take testimony — a letter of instruction to the commissioner that he should not let the commission leave his possession is competent where the testimony is conflicting as to ■whether the plaintiff grabbed, or was allowed to take, the commission.
In an action to recover damages for malicious prosecution it appeared that the defendant was a lawyer who had been appointed by a Tennessee court a commissioner to take the evidence of the plaintiff and his wife on written interrogatories; that after the testimony had been taken the plaintiff took possession of the commission; that the defendant had the plaintiff arrested upon the charge of having stolen the commission and that the plaintiff was discharged after a hearing. * .
The plaintiff testified that he took possession of the commission with the consent of the defendant for the purpose of consulting his attorney in regard thereto.' The defendant denied this and testified that the plaintiff grabbed the papers and refused to deliver them to the defendant notwithstanding the latter’s protest and his explanation that he was without power to consent that they should leave his .possession.
Meld, that the defendant was entitled to have admitted in evidence the letter of instructions sent to him with the commission directing him not to permit the commission to leave his possession.
Woodward, J., dissented.
Appeal by the defendant, Noah Loder, Jr., from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Westchester on the, 26th day of March, 1902, upon the verdict of a jury, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the ljth day of March, 1902, denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes. '
Theodore AT. Silhmcm, for the appellant.
PaVph E. Prime, for the respondent.

Opinion:
FEookbr, J.:
The defendant was appointed a commissioner to take evidence for use in an action pending in one of the courts of the State of Tennessee. The plaintiff and his wife were to be examined as witnesses. Pursuant to an agreement of the parties to this action the commission was delivered to the plaintiff, who lived in Yonkers, and later the defendant went to that city and took the depositions. After that had been done, the plaintiff swears that he took the papers, stating that he desired to consult his attorney in relation thereto, for the purpose of clearing up some matters that he was in doubt about; that the defendant consented, and that it was arranged that the papers should be delivered to the defendant later. The defendant, however, denies this, and his evidence tends to show that after.the testimony had been taken the plaintiff grabbed the papers and refused to deliver them back to the defendant notwithstanding the latter's protest and his explanation that he was without power to consent that they should leave his possession. Thereupon defendant procured the plaintiff's arrest, charging him with larceny of the commission. After a hearing the accused was discharged and later he brought this action for malicious prosecution, which has resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff. From the judgment and the order denying a motion for new trial the defendant appeals.
The defendant during the course of his evidence testified: " The commission in evidence (Plaintiff's Exhibit 0), which you hand me, I received from Mr. Charles Gerding, and at the same time I received with it certain instructions ; the paper which you hand me contains these instructions; that is the paper I received." This letter of instructions was then offered in evidence, but the court sustained an objection thereto and defendant excepted. The letter required the commissioner to certify at the end of the depositions that they were sealed by him and put in the post office, properly addressed, without the same being out of his possession or altered after they were taken.
The judgment must be reversed for the error of the court in excluding this letter of instructions. A sharp question of fact was litigated as to whether the plaintiff forcibly took the papers or whether they passed into his possession with the defendant's con sent; this had a direct and considerable bearing upon the question of probable cause. In actions for malicious prosecution it is competent upon disputed questions of fact as to malice and probable cause to show anything which would have operated on the mind of one of the parties in the direction of his contention. (English v. Major, 59 Hun, 317; Owens v. New Rochelle Coal & Lumber Co., 38 App. Div. 53; Seyne v. Blair, 62 N. Y. 19.) The defendant was entitled to present this evidence to the jury, and it cannot be said that its admission would not have affected the result.
The judgment and order appealed from should be reversed and a new trial granted.
Bartlett and Jenks, JJ., concurred; Hirsohberg, J., concurred in separate memorandum ; Woodward, J., read for ¿ffirmance.