Odger's English Common Law

THE PLAINTIFF'S CASE. 551
lawful in setting the law in motion against a man, whom he
had sufficient reason to believe guilty ; and the fact that he
was actuated by malice in so doing cannot alter the legality
of his act. 1
Thus, where the jury found, in answer to specific questions, that the
defendant did not take reasonable care to inform himself of the true facts ;
that he honestly believed in the full charge which he laid before the magis-
trates ; and that he was actuated by malice and indirect motives in the
proceedings taken against the plaintiff, the Court of Appeal held that,
although the absence of reasonable and probable cause is some evidence from
which malice may be inferred, the jury, by their finding as to the honest
belief of the defendant, had negatived any such inference and that, in the
absence of any other evidence of indirect motive, the finding of malice in
the defendant was unsupported. 2
Even where the defendant has been bound over to prosecute, an action
for malicious prosecution will lie, if the plaintiff can prove that, when the
defendant made the charge, he acted maliciously and without reasonable
and probable cause. 8 And this is so even where the prosecution has been
instituted by the order of a county court judge. 4 Again, where any one
institutes proceedings with a bond fide belief in the guilt of the accused,
but subsequently facts come to his knowledge which shake or alter that
belief, if he nevertheless proceeds with the prosecution, he may be liable,
for he ought to have abandoned it directly his opinion changed as to the
guilt of the accused.
(iv.) The plaintiff must also prove that the proceedings in-
stituted against him terminated in his favour. 8
Thus, if A. in-
stitutes proceedings of a criminal nature against B. and B. is
convicted, B. can bring no action for malicious prosecution,
until the conviction is quashed. As long as the decision of one
Court remains unreversed, no other Court—except on appea
—can take upon itself to say that there was no reasonable
and probable cause for the former decision. 6 And this is so
where the proceedings, of which the plaintiff complains, were
taken in a foreign Court. 7
1 See, for instance, Corporation of Bradford v. Vickies, [1895] A. C. 587 Allen
;
v. Flood, [1898] A. C. 1 ; and Davis v. Mayor, $c, of Bromley, [1908] 1 K. B.
170 ; ante, pp. 409, 410.
2 Brown v. Hawkes, [1891] 2 Q. B. 718.
3 Dubois v. Keats (1840), 11 A. & E. 329.
* Fitzjohn v. Maokinder (1861), 9 C. B. N. S. 605.
5 Metropolitan Bank v. Pooley (1885), 10 App. Cas. 210 The Quartz Hill, ; fc.,
Co. v. Eyre (1883), 11 Q. B. E>. 674.
6 Basibi v. Matthews (1867), L. B. 2 C. P. 684.
' Castrique v. Behrens (1861), 30 L. J. Q. B. 163.