
    Wass v. Stephens.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
    
    July 2, 1889.)
    Appeal—Review—Weisht op Evidence.
    Defendant in an action for malicious prosecution had permission, at the will of the commissioners, to connect water-pipes with the main in Brooklyn. The commisioners withdrew the permission, and directed plaintiff, their officer, to disconnect the pipes. Defendant procured plaintiff’s arrest, on the ground that be cut the pipes improperly. The jury found that the cut was properly made. Held, that a verdict for plaintiff would not be disturbed on appeal.
    Appeal from circuit court, Kings county.
    Action by Jerome B. Wass against Benjamin F. Stephens for malicious prosecution. Judgment was entered on a verdict for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
    Argued before Barnard, P. J„ and Pratt, J.
    
      
      Orlando L. Stewart, for appellant.
   Barnard, P. J.

The defendant had an arrangement by which he was permitted to connect a system of water-pipes with the main, under the contract with the Brooklyn park commissioners. The permission was at the will of the park commissioners. They withdrew the permission, and gave notice thereof to the defendant. The board of Brooklyn park commissioners therefore gave notice to its officer, the plaintiff, to disconnect the system. He did so, and for this was criminally arrested by direction of the defendant. After a hearing he was discharged. There was no cause for the arrest, and none is pretended, except that the cut of the Stephens pipes from the park pipes could have been made in a different manner. This, if true, would show a mere error in judgment, and would not justify a criminal arrest. The defendant had the benefit of the evidence. The jury were told that they could find probable cause for the complaint, if the plaintiff was doing his work so as to cause needless injury to the defendant’s company. If the work was being done in a proper manner, there was no probable cause for the arrest. The jury have found the cut properly made, and under such a finding no ordinarily prudent man could have supposed there was a criminal offense committed by plaintiff. He was doing a duty under the orders of his superiors. The commissioners had the right and the power to make the order, and the plaintiff did the work without needless injury to the defendant. The case shows no error, and the judgment should therefore be affirmed, with costs.  