Court : US Supreme Court
Stewart v. Sonneborn - 98 U.S. 187 (1878) U.S. Supreme Court Stewart v. Sonneborn, 98 U.S. 187 (1878) Stewart v. Sonneborn 98 U.S. 187 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA Syllabus 1. To sustain an action for malicious prosecution, the failure of the proceedings against the plaintiff must be averred and proved, but such failure is not evidence of the defendant's malice or want of probable cause in instituting them. 2. Malice, the existence of which is a question exclusively for the jury, and want of probable cause must both concur to entitle the plaintiff to recover, and although the jury may infer malice from the want of probable cause, proof even of express malice will not justify the inference that probable cause did not exist. 3. The question as to what amounts to probable cause is one of law in a very important sense. It is therefore generally the duty of the court, when evidence has been given to prove or disprove the exist...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Smith v. Railroad Company - 99 U.S. 398 (1878) U.S. Supreme Court Smith v. Railroad Company, 99 U.S. 398 (1878) Smith v. Railroad Company 99 U.S. 398 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS Syllabus 1. The jurisdiction of the federal courts cannot be affected by state legislation, and they will enforce equitable rights created by such legislation if they have jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties. 2. A., an alleged creditor of B., whose claim had not been established at law, filed his bill against the latter, averring him to be insolvent, and against C., a debtor of B., praying that the debt due from C. be applied to the payment of that claim. There being no assignment to A. by B. of his debt against C., and no lien upon the fund in the hands of the latter, held that the bill could not be sustained. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. MR. JUSTICE SWAYNE delivered the opinion of the Court. This case was deci...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1878)ILR3Cal320
Ainslie, J.1. Independently of this there is another reason for which the order must be set aside. In the order of the Magistrate by which he referred the case to the Deputy Magistrate for explanation, it is said that the petitioner before him had asserted that six and twenty villages out of the thirty which formed the subject of the order were actually held in ticca. The Deputy Magistrate in his reply does not deny that there are certain villages in the possession of ticcadars, but he contends that there being a dispute between the contending parties as to collection of rent, it is necessary to decide the question of possession in respect of all the villages held in Khas and ticca jointly, by which he apparently means all the villages, whether held khas or leased out. No doubt it has been held that questions between zemindars as to the right of collecting rents directly from the ryots may be considered by Magistrates, and that this right of so collecting rents is in fact possession wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1878)ILR3Cal540
Ainslie, J.1. We see no grounds for interfering. Section 453 of the Criminal Procedure Code modifies Section 452, which requires a separate charge and a separate trial for every distinct offence, by allowing three charges of three distinct offences of the same kind and committed within one year of each other to be tried at the same time; hut this does not mean that, if at one time or within one year a man commits fifty distinct offences of the same kind, he shall not in one day be prosecuted for more than throe such offences. This is clear from illustration (6), Section 454....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Ainslie, J.1. We think that the Sessions Judge might have disposed of this case under Section 419, Criminal Procedure Code without a reference to this Court.2. The words 'Court of appeal' in that section are not necessarily limited to a Court before which an appeal is at the moment pending. It may very often happen, as in this case, that the question of the propriety of an order under Section 418 for the disposal of any property produced before the Court may in no way concern the convicted person; and we think it unreasonable to put such a construction on Section 419 as shall make the power of the Judge to modify, alter on annul a Magistrate's order affecting one, contingent on the accident whether another person has or has not chosen to appeal.3. Section 286, by the words 'except in the cases provided for by this Act' must include cases in which the power to alter or annul the order of a Magistrate is expressly given.4. We are further of opinion that the case does not call for our int...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal570
Birch, J.1. In this case the Sessions Judge of Burdwan has committed the petitioner before us to take his trial before the Court of Sessions on a charge of having given false evidence in a stage of a judicial proceeding,--viz., a trial held in the Court of Sessions under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Judge had himself held the preliminary enquiry, and committed the case to the Court of Sessions.2. We are asked to set aside this commitment as made in contravention of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.3. The Sessions Judge; in the explanations which he has submitted, states that, in his opinion, Section 471 empowers him to commit this case, and that that power is not limited or restricted by the provisions of the following Section (472).4. We think that the learned Judge has taken an erroneous view of the law, and that the interpretation he would put upon these sections cannot be supported.5. The offence with which Futteh Jya Khan is charged, is admitt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
L.S. Jackson, J.1. The Deputy Magistrate was bound, under Section 215 of the Criminal Procedures Code, to hear all the witnesses for the prosecution. We direct that he do this, and then pass such order on the case as the evidence appears to him to call for....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1878)ILR2Bom525
1. This case depends upon the 4th and 5th clauses of Section 263 of the Criminal Procedure Code. These clauses are not very clearly drawn; but taking them together, as we are bound to do, in order to ascertain the meaning of the Legislature, we think that the 'dissent,' spoken of in the 4th clause, must be such a complete dissent as to lead the Judge to consider it necessary for the ends of justice to submit the case to the High Court. There being no such complete dissent in this case, we think that the conviction and sentence must stand. This decision is not in conflict with our decision in Imperatrix v. Hari Ghanu, where we held that Government might appeal against an acquittal by a jury where the Judge differed from the jury, but did not consider it necessary for the ends of justice to refer the case to the High Court....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We are clearly of opinion, that an offence under Section 49, Act XXI of 1856, can be tried summarily by a Magistrate under Section 222 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. The confiscation, which is provided for by Section 49, is merely a consequence of the conviction, and does not form part of the punishment for the offence. We observe that, in the case of Khetter Mohun Chowrunghee 22 W.R. Cr. Rul. 43, to which we are referred, the question which we are called upon to decide was given up by the Government Pleader without argument; and that in the second case the learned Judges merely followed the ruling in the first, so that this would appear to be the first occasion on which the point has been seriously considered....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1878)ILR2Bom534
Melvill, J.1. In this case Gowdapa bin Venkugowda was accused before a First Class Magistrate, Mr. Ramchandra Bapuji, of an offence triable by the Magistrate, and was discharged by him under Section 216 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The District Magistrate thereupon called for the record of the case; and, not being satisfied with the reasons given for the order of discharge, sent the record to another First Class Magistrate, Mr. Campbell, with an order directing him to try the case afresh. Mr. Campbell convicted the accused; but, on appeal to the Sessions Court, the conviction was reversed, on the ground that it was not competent to the District Magistrate to revive the proceedings, after Gowdapa had been discharged by Mr. Ramchandra Bapuji. In support of this conclusion the Sessions Judge relied on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Mohesh Mistree and another I.L.R. 1 Cal. 282.2. The District Magistrate professes to have acted under Section 142 of the Criminal Pr...
Tag this Judgment!