Putnam's Handy Law Book for the Layman

Wrongs.—"A tort is an act or omission which unlawfully violates a person's right created by the law, and for which the appropriate remedy is a common law action for damages by the injured person." The right that is violated is private and not public, which marks off a tort from a crime. Again, the wrongful act may be a violation of both a private and public right, in which case both the individual and the state have a remedy against the wrongdoer. Thus A without excuse attacks B and bruises his nose. B has an action to recover damages against him for despoiling his countenance; the state also may proceed against him in a criminal action for his breach of the public peace. Another illustration may be given. A clerk embezzles money from his bank. It sues him and perhaps his bondsmen and recovers the money. Embezzlement, however, is a criminal offense, and the recovery of the money taken does not affect in any way the right of the state to proceed against the embezzler. Indeed, an individual who has been wronged cannot by any restitution or settlement that he may make with the wrongdoer impair the right of the state to punish him.
Torts or wrongs are very numerous for which the wrongdoer may be held liable. The first to be mentioned is false imprisonment. The law punishes false imprisonment as a crime; the person unlawfully imprisoned also has a civil action for damages. A person is said to be imprisoned "in any case where he is arrested by force and against his will, although it be on the high street or elsewhere and not in a house." Mere words are not an arrest. If an officer says, "I arrest you," and you run away, there is no arrest. But if an officer touches you and takes you into custody there is an

arrest even though you run away afterward.
A malicious prosecution is another wrong. A person who brings his action for this wrong must prove four things: first, that the prosecution has terminated in the complainant's favor; second, that it was instituted maliciously; third, that it was brought without probable cause; fourth, that it damaged or injured the complainant. The term malice means something more than "the intentional doing of a wrongful act to the injury of another without legal excuse." It means that the original prosecutor was actuated by some "improper or sinister motive." The term "probable cause" requires explanation. Nothing is better settled, says one of the courts, than this, that when the person who brings such an action against another "submits his facts to his attorney, who advises they are sufficient, and he acts thereon in good faith, such advice is a defense to an action for malicious prosecution." That such advice may be a good defense a full and honest disclosure of all the facts must be made to him. Such advice will not serve as a screen if based on a fragmentary, incomplete statement of facts.

Another injury for which the law furnishes redress is that affecting reputation and character. It is true that the damages one may recover, however great, may be an inadequate redress, yet it is the best the law can do. The party injured by a libel or slander brings his action and wins his victory over his enemy, yet the battlefield remains and the scar of the wound inflicted. The issue in an action for defamation is not the character of the plaintiff, but the wrongfulness of the particular statement. Therefore "it is not a defense to a libel or slander that the plaintiff has been guilty of offenses other than those imputed to him, or of offenses of a similar character; and such facts are not competent in mitigation of damages."