{
  "id": 8728132,
  "name": "Hooper v. Lee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hooper v. Lee",
  "decision_date": "1852-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "779",
  "last_page": "780",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "12 Ark. 779"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "7 Porter 437",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Port.",
      "case_ids": [
        11256273
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/port/7/0437-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "7 Watts 189",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Watts",
      "case_ids": [
        1846794
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/watts/7/0189-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "4 Met. 421",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Met.",
      "case_ids": [
        2065797
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/mass/45/0421-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 214,
    "char_count": 2712,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.496,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20863108235267772
    },
    "sha256": "f50b2a418f5f5b5e1c20ae3da49d8005c3d271ac319cdbc0b94d61ebf2934110",
    "simhash": "1:196d9b59c1cfcd52",
    "word_count": 451
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:49:49.158040+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Hooper v. Lee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Scott\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe testimony rejected was clearly competent: indeed no other evidence was competent, unless a foundation had been laid for secondary evidence by proof of the loss of this that the court rejected. Those proceedings before the justice were the very foundation of the complaint, and by these the plaintiff proposed to make out the first point in his case, to wit: his prosecution and acquittal. (2 Greenl. Ev., p. 427, \u00a7 449. 4 Phil. Ev., p. 253. Beebe v. De Baun, 3 Eng., p. 570.)\nLet the judgment be reversed, and the cause remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Scott"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "F. W. \u00e1s P. Trapnall, for the appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Hooper v. Lee.\nIn case for malicious prosecution, tlie affidavit and warrant under which plaintiff was arrested, must be introduced as evidence, unless a slowing is made for tie introduction of secondary evidence \u2014 in tbis case tie court below erroneously excluded them as evidence when offered by the plaintiff.-\nAppeal from Scott Circuit Courts\nThis was an action on the case for malicious prosecution,brought by Obadiah C. Hooper against James F. Lee, in the Scott circuit court.\nThe gravamen of the charge in the declaration is, that on the 24th April, 1849, defendant falsely and maliciously made an affidavit before Seth Spangler, a justice of the peace of said county, that plaintiff was guilty of perjury in posting a certain cow, &c., whereupon the justice issued a warrant for the apprehension of the plaintiff, under which he was arrested, imprisoned, and afterwards tried and acquitted.\nDefendant pleaded not guilty, upon which plea the parties went to trial. The plaintiff offered in evidence, the affidavit, warrant and return thereon, under which he was arrested, \u00e1se., after having proven by the justice Spangler, (whose official character Was admitted) that said warrant was sworn to and subscribed by the defendant, before him, and that he issued said warrant, as such justice, and that said plaintiff was arrested thereunder, tried and acquitted before him, \u00e1se., to the introduction of which, as evidence, defendant objected, and the court sustained the objection. Yerdict for defendant, bill of exceptions, and appeal by plaintiff.\nF. W. \u00e1s P. Trapnall, for the appellant.\nThe apprehension and imprisonment of the plaintiff, the affidavit, writ and return thereon, afforded the highest evidence, and were therefore competent. 4 Met. 421. 7 Watts 189. 7 Porter 437. 1 Brevard 173. 5 Waits & Serg. 438. The plaintiff was bound to prove the affidavit made by the defendant, either by the affidavit itself or an examined copy. 4 Stark. Ev. 919. \u2022 Peake's Ev. 330. 1 B. & P. 281; also the writ and return \u2014 the return of the sheriff is evidence for either party. 4 Starkie 919. 11 East. 297. 1 Star-kie 284."
  },
  "file_name": "0779-01",
  "first_page_order": 779,
  "last_page_order": 780
}