When suspicion between men is suggested, it is easily entertained.

Explanation

(English-origin maxim.) Once suspicion is planted between parties, human nature readily embraces it — courts must therefore demand proof rather than innuendo, because mere suggestion of wrongdoing, without evidence, is insufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence or good faith that the law recognizes in every man.

Where this applies

• A prosecutor suggests to the jury that the defendant's nervous demeanor proves guilt, but the judge instructs the jury that suspicion, once planted, is easily entertained and they must rely on evidence, not innuendo.
• A business rival spreads rumors that a competitor is insolvent; the competitor sues for defamation, and the court notes that once suspicion is suggested between parties, it takes hold quickly even without proof.
• A neighbor tells others that the new family on the block is untrustworthy; the court cautions that suspicion between men, once suggested, is readily believed, and that the law demands proof over rumor.