{
  "id": 5156302,
  "name": "Joseph Skala and Mary Skala v. John Rus",
  "name_abbreviation": "Skala v. Rus",
  "decision_date": "1895-11-18",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "479",
  "last_page": "480",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "60 Ill. App. 479"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "30 Ill. App. 184",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2420721
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/30/0184-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "37 Ill. App. 29",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "58 Ill. 366",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5235173
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/58/0366-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "35 Ill. 487",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5257117
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/35/0487-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "50 Ill. 512",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2607619
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/50/0512-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "70 Ill. 410",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "27 App. 510",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ohio App.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "15 Mass. 242",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mass.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "24 Ill. App. 65",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5780076
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/24/0065-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "53 Mich. 33",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mich.",
      "case_ids": [
        1437002
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/mich/53/0033-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "70 Ill. 544",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5308897
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/70/0544-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 276,
    "char_count": 3218,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.502,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.637194513077752e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8227771194382375
    },
    "sha256": "0f2e3f533111b2c07fc3410a2b816115913b7dcdbc5080be1980806782251b80",
    "simhash": "1:0c4751ec933f754f",
    "word_count": 539
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:22:36.351146+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Joseph Skala and Mary Skala v. John Rus."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mb. Pbesiding Justice Q-aby\ndelivebed the opinion of THE CoUBT.\nThe parties and witnesses who have testified in this cause, speaking mainly through interpreters, expressed themselves very imperfectly in their own tongue, or their language suffered great damage in transmission.\nThe appellee sued the appellant for a malicious prosecution of the appellee for his conduct on the night of June 26, 1893.\nThe parties all lived in the one house, of which the appellants were the owners. On the question of probable cause, the evidence very greatly preponderates in favor of the appellants. Hone was offered by the appellee while putting in his original case, though it was then necessary. Purcell v. McNamara, 1 Camp. 199.\nThe burden of proof was on him to show clearly, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the appellants did not have probable cause to institute the prosecution. Palmer v. Richardson, 70 Ill. 544, is one of the many like cases.\nThe appellants\u2019 two daughters, a daughter-in-law and two other witnesses testified on the defense to the misconduct of the appellee, and that one Toro! took him away.\nAll this the appellee denied on rebuttal.\nOne tenant living on the third floor of the house heard nothing of a disturbance, and Torol testified, \u201c I have never pulled anybody away.\u201d lie was a good witness. Being asked on cross-examination: \u201c You say you never pulled anybody away from Skala\u2019s window. Is that right % \u201d A. \u201c Ho, I didn\u2019t see Mm on that night.\u201d\nQ. \u201c On what night ? \u201d A. \u201c Why whatever night they were testifying to here.\u201d\nThe reluctance of this court to disturb the verdict of juries upon evidence is pretty well known, but justice sometimes requires it to be done, perhaps oftener than we see the necessity.\nThe judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mb. Pbesiding Justice Q-aby"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Samuel H. Trude, attorney for appellants,",
      "Fanning & Hebdlicka, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Joseph Skala and Mary Skala v. John Rus.\n1. Malicious Prosecution\u2014Burden of proof.\u2014In actions for malicious prosecution the burden is upon the plaintiff to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant did not have probable cause to institute the prosecution.\nTrespass on the Case, for malicious prosecution. Appeal from the Superior Court of-Cook County; the Hon. Philip Stein, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1895.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed November 18, 1895.\nSamuel H. Trude, attorney for appellants,\ncontended that a conviction before a magistrate is a bar to a malicious prosecution. Phillips v. Kalamazoo, 53 Mich. 33.\nIn Emery v. Ginnan, 24 Ill. App. 65, this court said; \u201c A conviction is not only probable, but actual cause.\u201d\nThere is probable cause although the conviction is reversed on appeal. Kaye v. Kean, 18 B. Mon. (Ky.) 839; Whitney v. Metcalf, 15 Mass. 242; Cooley on Torts, 185; Newell on Malicious Prosecution, 293.\nIf there is probable cause, it makes no difference whether there was malice or not. Probable cause is a complete defense. Fadner v. Filer, 27 App. 510; Barrett et al. v. Spaids, 70 Ill. 410; Chapman v. Cowrey, 50 Ill. 512; Ross & Co. v. Ellis, 35 Ill. 487; Mitchinson v. Cross, 58 Ill. 366; Smith v. Hall, 37 Ill. App. 29; Low v. Greenwood, 30 Ill. App. 184; Newell on Malicious Prosecution, 307.\nFanning & Hebdlicka, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0479-01",
  "first_page_order": 477,
  "last_page_order": 478
}
