The plaintiff, in an action for malicious prosecution, must show the defendant's connection with the original action. It is sufficient if the defendant either commenced the action or continued it after the want of probable cause had been shown.22 Where an action was instituted by several persons, in the name of one, with probable cause, and afterward during the progress of the suit, the person in whose name the action was commenced, discovered that there is no probable cause of action, but did not dismiss the suit, he was held to be alone liable for malicious prosecution.23 Where one party caused the arrest of another upon a warrant for larceny and the justice of the peace, before whom the case comes, of his own motion, changed the charge to one of disorderly conduct, imposed a fine and committed the accused to jail in default of payment thereof, the party instigating the prosecution was held not to be liable for anything done after the charge had been changed.24

17 Wilkinson vs. Arnold, 11 Ind.,

45; Cook vs. Proskey, 138 Fed. 273; 77 D. C. A., 563.

18 Hurd vs. Shaw, 20 111., 354; Mc-

Morris vs. Howell, 89 N. Y. App. Div.,272;85 N. Y. Suppl., 1018. One who both makes an arrest and originates the proceeding in which it is made may be liable for malicious prosecution, although protected as to the arrest. Register vs. Lee Sam., 94 Fed., 343;

36 C. C. A., 285. 19 Krulevitz vs. Eastern R. Co.,

140 Mass., 573, 5 N. E., 500;

Luden vs. McGee. 16 Ont., 105. 20 Burnap vs. Albert, 4 Fed. Cas.

No. 2, 170. 21 Thompson vs. Bell, 11 Tex. Am.

App., 1.32 S. W., 142. 22 Wenger vs. Phillips, 195 Pa. St.,

214; 45 Atl 927, 78 Am. St.

Rep., 810; Blunk vs. Atchinson, etc. R. Co., 38 Fed., 311. 23 Bicknell vs. Darion, 16 Pick.

(Mass), 478.

The action of the defendant must have been the proximate and efficient cause of putting the law in operation in the original case.25 The action does not lie for merely preferring an accusation,26 or for making to a magistrate a full and true statement of facts which the magistrate, mistakenly believing to constitute a good ground of action, issues a warrant upon.27 An action for malicious prosecution does not lie where the defendant made no effort to procure the indictment, but merely went before the grand jury upon process issued by the State,28 or where the defendant believing that a crime had been committed, called in a police inspector and stated the material facts to him, expecting him to make further investigations.29

An attorney may be liable for suing out process,30 or procuring an arrest when he knows that there is no cause of action;31 he is not liable, however, when he relies, in good faith, upon the information furnished to him by his client.32

24 Frankfurter vs. Bryan, 12 111.

App., 549. 25 Cook vs. Proskey, 138 Fed., 273;

Waker vs. Thies, 56 Mo., 89;

Wilkinson vs. Arnold, 11 Ind.,

45. 26 White vs. Shrodski, 36 Mo. App.,

635; Brown vs. Chadsey, 39

Barb, 253; Wasserman vs.

Louisville etc. R. Co., 28 Fed.,

802. 27 Gole vs. Andrews, 74 Minn., 93,

76 N. W., 962. A complaining witness is not responsible for the judgment of a magistrate in issuing a search warrant upon an insufficient affidavit.

Wilmerton vs. Sample, 42 111.

App., 254. 28 Breneman vs. West, 21 Tex. Civ.

App., 19, 50 S. W., 471. 29 Burnham vs. Collateral Loan Co., 179 Mass., 268, 60 N. E., 617. 30 Warfield vs. Campbell, 35 Ala., 349. 31 Burlap vs. Marsh, 13 111., 535. 32 Liquid Carbonic Acid Mfg. Co. vs. Convert, 82 III. App., 39.

A person cannot be held liable for malicious prosecution merely on account of some unauthorized act of his partner.33