
    Charles Wilson v. Giovanni Ferrari.
    1. A motion will not be entertained, to strike from an answer the statements of fact, alleged as probable cause, in defense of an action for malicious prosecution. -
    2. In suck case, a demurrer would lie, if tke facts as stated did not constitute a probable cause.
    Special Term. — The action was to recover damages for a malicious prosecution of the plaintiff, in the police court of Cincinnati, on a charge of larceny, made by the defendant. The answer set out, in detail, the facts and circumstances under which the charge had been made, and claimed that they constituted probable cause, which was the defense to the ación. A motion was made to strike out that part of the answer stating the facts, leaving only the conclusion that there was probable cause.
    
      Parker & Parker, for plaintiff.
    
      T. A. Logan and E. P. Norton, for defendant.
   Gholson, J.

It was proper to state the facts, so that the court might determine whether they would constitute probable cause or not; if the facts as stated would not constitute probable cause, and were therefore irrelevant, the proper course would be to demur to the answer. The motion to strike out is therefore overruled.  