Specifically, Gillespie represented that the endorsement on the check had been forged, that “Mrs.
Gillespie showed the officer the check, the affidavit, and the bank's letter, and told him that he had received a bad check for car repairs from a woman who identified herself as Fran Carroll. From the officer's testimony at trial, and his original written report, the account of that meeting most favorable to the plaintiff appears as follows. Gerard, a Marshfield police officer and the town prosecutor. On June 25, 1976, Gillespie went to the Plymouth District Court and met with Sergeant Andrew P. 3 The issue presented is whether the defendants' motions for directed verdicts on the claims for malicious prosecution and abuse of process were properly denied. Judgment was entered on the verdicts in the amount of $15,000, and the defendants appealed. The jury found for the defendants on the claim for slander. In answer to those questions, the jury found for the plaintiff on the claims for malicious prosecution and abuse of process, and assessed damages in the amount of $7,500 on each claim. 2 The issues were then submitted to the jury by way of special questions. 814 (1974), which were denied as to the three *13 claims above.
#Coblyn v kennedy inc trial
At trial in the Superior Court, the defendants filed motions for directed verdicts, Mass.R.Civ.P. (dealership) on six separate theories, including malicious prosecution, abuse of process and slander. Gillespie (Gillespie) and Gillespie Ford Sales, Inc. The plaintiff brought this action to recover damages from the defendants James J.
0 kommentar(er)
