Hewelcke

Hewelcke v. Shipman

Good Law
1924 Cal. App. LEXIS 621·65 Cal. App. 257·223 P. 1019
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 14, 1924Civ. No. 4654.California3,127 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Sure, J.

This is an action to recover damages for malicious prosecution. Trial was had by jury, which gave plaintiff a verdict for fifteen hundred dollars, upon which judgment was entered. Defendant appeals from the judgment and also from an order denying his motion for a new trial.

Defendant claims, in support of this appeal, that the evidence is insufficient that he instituted a criminal action without probable cause. Probable cause is a suspicion founded upon circumstances sufficiently strong to warrant a reasonable man in the belief that the charge is true (Potter v. Seale, 8 Cal. 221). It is necessary to chronologically narrate the facts contained in the record, in order to show the situation of the parties and the circumstances of their business relationship preceding and up to the trouble which resulted in this litigation.

Plaintiff Hewelcke is a public accountant. Defendant Shipman, for a number of years prior to April 20, 1920, had been the exclusive sales agent for the Automatic Refrigerating Company of Hartford, Connecticut, of which I. K. Hamilton, Jr., and M. F. Owens were at all times respectively president and secretary. The business of the corporation is the erection of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.