Prieth

General demurrer to the second amended complaint for malicious prosecution was sustained without leave to amend. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment of dismissal.

*469 The complaint alleges in detail that: in August 1959, plaintiff gave to defendant, his landlady, a check for $100; he told her that funds to cover the check would not be deposited for a few days; she agreed to hold the cheek for a time; instead, she deposited it, it was returned, and defendant then paid her $100 by cashier’s check. He alleges that he was arrested May 19,1960 on a complaint charging violation of Penal Code section 476a, was held in jail some three weeks, and that the complaint was dismissed.

Defendant argues that there is no allegation that she instigated the prosecution. It is true that plaintiff alleges that he is “not in a position to ascertain if the Defendant Dorsey or the County of Santa Cruz (also a defendant) was the prime mover in this prosecution.” However, he does refer to the complaint as “based on the evidence supplied by the Defendant Dorsey,” and alleges “it must be assumed that Defendant Dorsey acted without good cause and for malicious reasons only in procuring the Plaintiff’s…