Malicious Prosecution — Criminal Charge — Altering Railroad Ticket—Probable Cause—-Verdict against Evidence.—In this action to recover damages for the malicious prosecution of the plaintiff by the defendants upon a criminal charge of altering a railroad ticket with intent to defraud, it is held that a verdict for the plaintiff is against the evidence, which clearly shows that there was probable cause for the criminal prosecution.

Id.—Nature oe Probable Cause—Reasonable Belief of Truth of Charge.—Probable cause is a suspicion founded upon circumstances sufficiently strong to warrant a reasonable man in believing that the charge is true. If the facts known are of such character as to induce in the mind of a reasonable man the honest belief that a crime has been committed, he is justified in seeking to have the crime punished.

Id.—Probable Cause when a Question of Law—Absence of Conflict.—When there is no conflict in the evidence, the question whether or not the evidence introduced for the plaintiff shows probable cause is always for the court to decide; and it is error in such ease, where there is probable cause, to submit any question to the jury.

Id.—Duty of Person Prosecuting Offense—Fulj¿ Investigation not Required.—It is not necessary that the person instituting the criminal prosecution shall make a full investigation of the crime itself, or seek to ascertain whether there are other facts relating to the offense, or to try to find out whether the accused has any defense to the charge. He is not required to exhaust all sources of information bearing upon the facts which have come to his knowledge.

Id.—Evidence Tending to Show Alteration of Ticket—Plaintiff not Excused.—Where the conductor as co-defendant testified to-his practice, in granting stopovers, to write the number of the-station, whereby he knew, for that and other reasons, including proof of plaintiff’s handwriting, that the ticket had been altered from a stopover, at Pajaro, so as to read San Jose, and had been sold by plaintiff to another person, so as to call for another ride from San Jose to Pajaro, the objection that the conductor had not stated that practice to counsel, if true, could not render plaintiff' guiltless of the offense.

Id.—Statement of Facts to Counsel in Good Faith—Probable. Cause Shown.-—In addition to the proposition that the evidence adduced was of itself sufficient to show probable cause for the prosecution, the defendants were also entitled to the benefit of the-rule that where one, before instituting a prosecution for crime, has. in good faith consulted an attorney at law of good standing, has. stated to him all of the facts of the ease, and has been thereupon advised by such counsel that a prosecution would lie, and such person has acted honestly upon that advice, this of itself constitutes, probable cause.

Id.-—Preliminary Examination—Holding of Accused to Answer— Prima Facie Evidence of Probable Cause.—Where the accused, person has had a preliminary examination upon the offense charged-of altering the railroad ticket, and has been held to answer thereto ■ in the superior court, this is prima facie evidence of the existence of' probable cause for the prosecution; and where there was no evidence-in contradiction of the prima facie evidence made by the commitment, but on the contrary the evidence tended to confirm it, the-probable cause is fully established.