References:  EngR 3039, (1795) 3 Salk 16, (1795) 91 ER 664 (B)
Coram: Holt CJ
Ratio: Case for causing and maliciously procuring the plaintiff to be indicted for a riot. It was held by Holt, Chief Justice, it is not sufficient that the plaintiff prove he was innocent but he must prove express malice in the defendant; he likewise held, that this action is not grounded upon the conspiracy, but in the damage, and therefore the plaintiff must prove his damages, otherwise the action will not lie : but in a writ of conspiracy it is otherwise, and where such a writ is brought, if one is acquitted the other cannot be found guilty.
Holt CJ said: ‘if he shew any special matter, whereby it appears to the court that it was frivolous and vexatious, he shall have an action’.
This case cites:
- See Also – Savill v Roberts CCP (Commonlii,  EngR 679, (1688-1710, 1738) Holt KB 150, (1738) 90 ER 981 (A), Carthew 416, 5 Mod 394)
On a writ of error of a judgment in CB in an action on the case in nature of a conspiracy, brought by Roberts against Savill and others, for maliciously causing him the said Roberts to be indicted, with other persons, of a riot, of which he had been . .
- See Also – Savill v Roberts (Commonlii,  EngR 302, (1741) Carth 416, (1741) 90 ER 841)
The plaintiff, Roberts, was entitled to recover £11 damages in proceedings for malicious prosecution, the defendant having maliciously caused Roberts to be indicted for causing a riot, and Roberts having been acquitted. The £11 was the . .
- See Also – Savill v Roberts CCP (Commonlii,  EngR 1720, (1790) 3 Ld Raym 264, (1790) 92 ER 679)
- See Also – Savile v Roberts (Commonlii,  EngR 2096, (1792) 1 Ld Raym 374, (1792) 91 ER 1147)
D had maliciously caused C to be indicted for riot. Following his acquittal C sued D for malicious prosecution. The court affirmed the judgment which had been given for C.
Held: It was irrelevant that D had not been part of a conspiracy. An . .
- Cited – Savill v Roberts (Commonlii,  EngR 1560, (1796) 12 Mod 208, (1796) 88 ER 1267)
- Cited – Crawford Adjusters and Others v Sagicor General Insurance (Cayman) Ltd and Another PC (Bailii,  UKPC 17,  4 All ER 8,  WLR(D) 229,  1 AC 366,  3 WLR 927,  6 Costs LO 826, WLRD, Bailii Summary)
(Cayman Islands) A hurricane had damaged property insured by the respondent company. The company employed the appellant as loss adjustor, but came to suspect advance payments recommended by him, and eventually claimed damages for deceit and . .
- Cited – Williamson v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago PC (Bailii,  UKPC 29)
(Trinidad and Tobago) The claimant had been held after arrest on suspicion of theft. He was held for several months before the case was dismissed, the posecution having made no apparent attempt to further the prosecution. He appealed against refusal . .