Giroux v. Goldman, 208 Ill. App. 261 (1917)

Nov. 30, 1917 · Illinois Appellate Court · Gen. No. 23,151

208 Ill. App. 261

Mary Giroux, Appellee, v. Ben Goldman, Appellant.

Gen. No. 23,151.

(Not to he reported in full.)

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. David F. Matchbtt, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1917.

Affirmed on remittitur; otherwise reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed November 30, 1917.

Statement of the Case.

Action by Mary Giroux, plaintiff, against Ben Goldman, defendant, to recover damages for malicious prosecution. FYom a verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $300, defendant appeals.

Kelley & Griffin, for appellant; Edward J. Kelley, of counsel.

Daniel L. Madden and R. C. Merrick, for appellee.

* See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Malicious prosecution, § 76 ^* —when malice not shown. In an action for malicious prosecution, evidence held insufficient to show malice on the part of defendant.

2. Malicious prosecution, § 20*—when good faith is sufficient defense. Good faith in swearing out the warrant for plaintiff’s arrest is a sufficient defense to an action for malicious prosecution.

3. Malicious prosecution, § 74*—when evidence is insufficient to show caution in swearing out warrant. In an action to recover for malicious prosecution, evidence held to show that, in swearing out a warrant for plaintiff’s arrest, defendant did not act as a reasonably cautious person would have acted in the circumstances.

4. Malicious prosecution, jj 98*—when verdict is excessive. In an action to recover for malicious prosecution, a verdict for plaintiff for $300 held excessive and remittitur of $150 required as condition of affirmance.