(Tenn.) 966 rel., v. Sullivan . (Okla.) 1218 Tax Lien Co. v. Schultze .... (N. Y.) 1115 Willis, Union Acci. Co. v. .... . (Okla.) Union Acci. Co. v. Willis .... (Okla.) 358 Union Pacific R. Co., Equitable LAWYERS REPORTS ANNOTATED NEW SERIES. I. Scope, 2. II. Introduction. a. Nature of probable cause, 2. III. General rule. a. Generally, 5. 1. Reason of rule, 11. 2. Effect of change in pleading, 12. b. When facts are disputed. 1. Generally, 12. 2. "Mixed question of law and fact," 43. 3. Taking opinion of jury as to (a) Special verdict, 47. numerous are or complicated, 50. (3) Instructions based upon par tial or imper fect presenta cient to warrant a reasonably prudent man in believing another guilty of a crime is one of law, and it is substantial error to submit it to the jury. An instruction that, in order for probable cause for an arrest to exist, the facts must be such as would justify an ordinarily prudent person in entertaining a belief in another's guilt, and that whether such facts had come to the knowledge of the defendant at the time he caused the arrest of the plaintiff is a question for the jury to determine, is likely to be understood by the jury to mean that they are to decide not only what information the defendant had, but whether it was III.-continued. c. When facts are undisputed. 2. Directed verdict, nonsuit, etc., d. Defining probable cause to the jury, 67. e. Effect of general rule upon plead ing, 70. f. View of probable cause on appeal, 71. tion of facts, VII. Conclusion, 89. (4) Examples of in- im proper, 53. As to conclusiveness of judgment rendered in criminal action to show probable cause, see note in 11 L.R.A. (N.S.) 663. As to acquittal or discharge as evidence of want of probable cause, see note in 64 L.R.A. 475. |