{
  "id": 8690742,
  "name": "Abner Williams v. William Woodhouse, et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Williams v. Woodhouse",
  "decision_date": "1831-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "257",
  "last_page": "260",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "3 Dev. 257"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "14 N.C. 257"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "2 Bur. 1005",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Bur.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 331,
    "char_count": 5190,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.407,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.1624620351806905e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7700800316929675
    },
    "sha256": "1c70ac8bab75d589798ba0461dd8f1bd0cd5dd561e19e009640e4aa728c26ac7",
    "simhash": "1:e45334877ba542b8",
    "word_count": 905
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:11:15.653835+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Abner Williams v. William Woodhouse, et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Haul. Judge.\nFrom the finding of the jury in this \u00abase, it may be that the judgment we feel ourselves bound to give, will not accord with the justice of the case. Admitting that however to be the case, it is better that the injury be submitted to, than that a wholesome and well established rule of law should be shaken.\nJudgments are the solemn determinations of judges upon subjects submitted to them, and the proceedings are 'recorded for the purpose of perpetuating them. They are the foundations of legal repose. It is stated by Lord Mansfield in Moses v. McFerlan, (2 Bur. 1005,) that the merits of a judgment can never be impeached by an original suit either at law or in equity; that the judgment . i - , , is conclusive as to the subject matter o\u00ed it whilst it is m .force, and until it is reversed or set aside. So it isstated in 1 Stark, on Evid. 224, that the record of a judgment in a criminal case is conclusive evidence of the fact of conviction and judgment, and all the legal consequences resulting from it. It is in the nature of a judgment in rem.\nJudgments can-no' be impeached collaterally ancl wIl\u2018ie tlie/ are unreversed, they are coiiclu.\nAn(i where the-indfctment^vas convicted of the not* m\\ny form \u00abfaction recov-acTiunfit tllC prosecutor, altion was the result \u00b0f conspna-cy and perjury,\nWhen an action is brought for a malicious prosecu-r tion, it is indispensable that the plaintiff should not only show forth the record of the prosecution, but also by the same record, his acquittal of the charge made against him. (2 Stark, on Evid. 906). If he cannot do this, he must fail in his action. So likewise must he fail, if lie shows forth a record, which shows a verdict and judgment of conviction. That judgment is evidence of his guilt, whilst it is in force.\nBut the plaintiff denies that this is an action for a malicious prosecution, in the limited, technical meaning of that action ; but an action on the case in its extensive meaning, complaining thattho plaintiff sustained damages in being convicted of the crime of conspiracy, thro\u2019 the agency of the defendants, and by their conspiracy. He admits the lawfulness of the conviction, but says it was procured by the perjury and conspiracy of tlie defendants.\n\u2019 The plaintiff certainly confines himself to very narrow limits. He suffered under that judgment, but he admits its legality. He only complains of the conspiracy and perjury of the defendants. If their conspiracy and perjury, admitting them to be guilty of them, are considered ** . \u2022 as unconnected with the judgment and the effects of the judgment, they are offences of a public nature. They may be punished for them by indictment. But keeping the judarment out of view, they have not injured the \u00b0 \u00b0 J \u00b0 plaintiff either m person or m purse. Let the case be disguised as it may, it-is an action .brought, for an injury sustained by that public prosecution; and as long as the plaintiff\u2019s guilt is established by the judgment in that prosecution, so long must he be without a remedy.\nPer Curiam. \u2014 Judgment aeetrmed,.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Haul. Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Iredell'. for the plaintiff.",
      "Kinney, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Abner Williams v. William Woodhouse, et al.\nThe plaintiff cannot recover in case for a malicious prosecution without producing the record of his acquittal.\nThe plaintiff declared as follows:\n\u201c And the said Muer complains &c. that heretofore- \u201c &c. they the said JVoodhouse and Saly.ear together with \u201c other persons &c. did conspire, combine, confederate \u201c and agree to accuse and charge the said Mner, together \u201c with J. P. and W. G. of a conspiracy, to cheat and \u201c defraud the said William Woodhouse of one half of a \u201c vessel,- called &c. and to give and procure evidence a- \u201c \u00a7a*ns^ sa'^ \u2022ftbveT, J, P. and W. G. sufficient to con- \u201c vict them of the said charge, and to cause them to be << indicted for the same charge so unjustly and falsely to \u201c be made by them the said Woodhouse and Salyear, a- \u201c gainst them the said Mner, J. P. and W. G. in the \u201c Superior Court &c. and cause them in such court to be \u201c convicted on their trial. And the said Mner saith, \u201c that the said Woodhouse and Salyear did at &c. in puriC suancc of the said corrupt agreement and conspiracy, \u201c cause the said Mner together with the said J. P. and \u201c W. G. to be indicted, and him, the said Mner, to be \u201c convicted for a conspiracy &c. and did appear and \u201c give evidence, and procure evidence to he given against \u201c the said Mner. whereof he was convicted, and suffered u much by long imprisonment and loss of money; altho* \u201c at the same time it was well known to the said Wood- \u201c house and Salyear, that the said charge so made was \u201c false and unfounded, and the said William Woodhouse \u201c was not at that time, and never was the sole owner of \u201c said vesselj &c.\u201d\nUpon not guilty pleaded, the jury, before DoNNEXX,, Judge, at Pasquotank, on the last spring circuit, found a verdict for the plaintiff. Upon the motion of the defendant\u2019s counsel, his Honor set the verdict aside, and directed a nonsuit to be entered ; because it was admitted by the plaintiff that he had been convicted of the offence, for which he averred he had been maliciously prosecuted.\nFrom this judgment the plaintiff appealed,\nIredell'. for the plaintiff.\nKinney, contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0257-01",
  "first_page_order": 263,
  "last_page_order": 266
}