Court Opinion

ID: 9310870
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-12-02 17:39:47.43026+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:14:08.604204
License: Public Domain

Memorandum of Decision.
The defendant in error recovered a judgment for $385, damages for malicious prosecution on a charge of taking a small quantity of the Kuhl company’s material in completing a cement sidewalk contract, a line of work in which the Kuhl company and Mack were competitors. Error was claimed in the admission of testimony as to a general custom prevailing among contractors of helping themselves to each other’s material when a small quantity was needed to complete a job.
The reviewing court holds that while such a custom is unreasonable as a rule of property, and therefore not binding, yet it was competent for the purpose for which it was evidently introduced — that is, as tending to prove a lack of criminal intent.
Judgment affirmed.