WordsAndPhrases”conviction.”The word “conviction” means the ascertainment of defendant’s guilt by some known legal mode, whether by confession in open court or by the verdict of a jury, or, under the Constitution and statute, by the judgment of a justice of the peace, where a jury trial is waived, provided the justice has final jurisdiction of the offense.[Ed. Note.For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol pp. -.Appeal from Superior Court, Anson County; E. B. Jones, Judge.Action by J. W. Smith against C. D. Thomas and others. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.This is an action for malicious prosecution. The plaintiff was charged before a justice of the peace with the commission of a criminal offense upon the accusation and affidavit of the defendant O. D. Thomas. At the trial, as the record shows, he pleaded guilty, and afterwards appealed to the superior court from the judgment of the justice, which was reversed by that court At the close of the plaintiff’s testimony, the court, on motion of the defendant, entered a judgment of nonsuit against the plaintiff, whereupon he excepted and appealed.J. W. Gulledge, for appellant Robinson & Caudle, J. A. Lockhart, and H. H. McLendon, for appellees.WALKER, J. after stating the facts as above. The reason for the decision of the court below was that the plaintiff had been convicted, upon his own confession of guilt. by the justice, and that the conviction was conclusive evidence of probable cause for the prosecution, although It was reversed In the superior court. In this ruling we concur with the judge who presided at the trial In the superior court.For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER In Dec. ft Am. Digs.to date, ft Reporter IndexesHowever the question may have been decided In the courts of the other states, and their decisions do not appear to have been entirely harmonious, this court has held in at least two previous adjudications that a conviction of the defendant in the criminal prosecution by a court of competent jurisdiction Is conclusive In an action by him for malicious prosecution upon the question of probable cause. It was so held in Griffis v. Sellars,N. CAm. Dec In that case It is said in support of the principle that “as evidence of probable cause a conviction by verdict and judgment Is as convincing, and therefore ought In law to be as high and conclusive, although vacated by appeal, as if It stood unreversed and In full force. It sanctions the prosecution in its origin and progress through that court, and is the highest evidence, namely, a judicial sentence of record, that apparently the accused was guilty. It is true that the law in its benignity allows the convict to show on appeal to another court that he Is really not guilty. But that does not show, nor can it be shown, against the facts of the first verdict and judgment that there was no just and probable cause of accusation.” It is true that Chief Justice Euffln refers In the opinion to a conviction by verdict and judgment, but a trial by jury is not essential to the conclusive effect of the conviction, for the latter word means in law the ascertainment of the defendant’s guilt by some known legal mode, whether by confession In open court or by the verdict of a jury, or, under our Constitution and statute, by the judgment of a justice of the peace, where a jury trial is waived, provided the justice has final jurisdiction of the offense. Commonwealth v. Lockwood,MassAm. Rep. ; People v. Adams,MichN. W. ; U. S. v. Watklnds C. C.Fed. ; Egan v. Jones,NevPac This court in Price v. Stanley,N. CS. B has approved the decision in Griffis v. Sellars, and expressly holds that the principle, as settled by that case, Is applicable to a conviction by a justice having jurisdiction of the offense, even without a jury trial. The court says In regard to a reversal of the conviction: “If by any means a trial had been afterwards had in the superior court, and the same had resulted in an acquittal of the plaintiff Price, nevertheless the conviction in the justice’s courta
