Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1883-12-18
DAMAGES AWARDED
The Plaintiff i'm the Suit of Brewer
Against Jacobs & Booker bya
Jury i'm the
USised States COurt-The Amount Fixet
Z at ses5O, the Estimated Injury
Sustained by
Brewer on account OF Stoppagc of WOrI
on His Farm and Impairing
sHis Credit.

The jury in the case of A. G. Brewer us.
jacobs Il Booker, suit for $4,000 in the
United States Court yesterday, brought in
a verdict for plaintiff for S22250. The facts in
the case were as follows:
In the year 1880 A. G.. Brewer was cot
ton planter near Scanlans Landing, in
Cri;tenden county, and had a contract
with Richardson d May, of New Orleans, to
furnish him with supplies, for which he
gave mortgage on his crops, etc. \ part
of his plantation, about ninety acres, was
known as the Malone place, the whole
farm consisting of 600 acres. Brewer made
an arrangement with Jacobs Il Booker.
with the consent of Richardson & MAY, to
send them the cotton from the Malone
place in payment for supplies advanced by
them. This was done, and q balance of
| S400 was left against Brewer on the books
of the latter. In 1881 he made a new ar
rasfgement for that year with Richardson
x May, giving another mortgage, which
was sent to Brewer from New Orleans some
| time in February to be executed and re-
corded by him. During the spring Brewer
desired to make similar arrangement
with Jacobs X Booker as tothe Malone
place, both to secure the old balance of
SiO0 and for new advances to the amount
| OF about 5000 Brewer contends that this
was agreed to, and that Jacobs 4 Booker
| advanced him $75, promising to ad-
vance the remainder, but that they after
ward declined to pay orders for small sums
| drawn by him. On the other hand, Jacobs
| q Booker declare that Brewer agreed to
give them mortgage on his interest in
the Malone place crop, and to send it to
| them by the next steamer, for the purpose
OF securing the old debt and 500, which
was not to be advanced until the execu-
of n Prnr l,
| Richardson d May mortgage to the clerk
of The court to be recorded, either not
| signed, or, if so, not properly acknowl-
edged. On this account the clerk refused
| to register it. The mortgage to the Malone
| place was not executed by Brewer, and
there was misunderstanding about the
transaction, Brewer contending that Jacobs
q Booker had not kept their agreement and
paid his orders, the other side claiming a
violation because the Malone mortgage
was not sent them. Jacobs & Booker
made repeated attempts to have Brewer
execute this mortgage, and an agreement
| was finally made that Brewer would give
a mortgage on the cotton-seed, but this
miscarried because of an alleged neglect to
| procure Richardson q Mays written con-
sent, as there was a great deal of conflict
| as to understanding about these various
! transactions.
The uneXecuted mortgage of Richardson
| x May fell into Jacobs q Booker's hands.
According to his contention it was found
| that the Malone place was included in it,
and he took the instrument to his lawyer
who advised an attachment suit. An affi-
davit was made by Booker that Brewer
was about to convey his property and the
attachment he sued out was levied July
9th on his mules, gin-stands and a growing
| crop, which was being cultivated by day
labor, and by garnishments on tenants
who were cultivating on shares or for rent.
| This suit was removed to the State Court
at Little Rock. Judge Caldwell tried it
and decided in Brewers favor, because he
believed there was not cause enough for
an attachment. Brewer then brought suit
in the United States Court here, before
Jude Hammond for malicious prosecution
of attachment suithout probable cause,
Brewer claiming that the levy of the at
tachment demoralized labor on the place,
causing the hands to quit work and abau-
don and neglect the crop, imparing his
credit and keeping him from procuring
other hands and supplies to furnish those
| who remained, whereby his crop was
short to his damage $4,000.
Booker claimed that the mules were
left in his possession with the right to
work them as formerly, and that the labor.
ers were notified that they would not be
troubled; also if there was any failure tc
work the crop it WAS caused by Brewers
cruelty and neglect OF his hands, and i
there was any shortness it was on account
of drouth. There was a great deal o.
proof about the agents of Jacobs & Booker
seiZing the cotton as soon as it was picked
making excessive levies. There were fif,
teen or twenty witnesses on each side anC
a mass of testimony, of which the above
is mere outline. The case was argued
by Messrs. John B. Martin and i. f
Wright for plaintiff, and Mr.. Z. Lehman
for the defense.
Judge Hammond's charge was an ex
haustive one and conveys q vast amoun
of information on nice points Of the law
in such cases.
Judge Hammond charged that there
was not ground enough for an attach
ment. Malice was defined to be the con
scicus violation of the law to the injury o
another. 1t may be either express or i'm
piled, as the facts alone will show. As t.
the advice of attorneys, if the jury find
that client acted in spite of legal advice
to the contrary, there would be malice
and where the jury finds in all the
facts that malice exists, notwith
standing the advice of counsel
that advice is no protection when there i
an absence of probable cause. If there i
probable cause for the suit of course malic,
Is immaterial, for man may always pros
ecute a suit if he has probable cause, III
matter how malicious it may be. If thu
jury find that the levying of the attach
ment injured the plaintiffs credit and en-
tailed material loss, the damages SHOULD
be estimated from proof and allowed. Blu
if plair5iff was not materially damaged
the verdict must be nominal, though still
in his favor, TO show that the attachment
was wrong. If there was no malice, tn,
: verdict must be for defendants, no matte
how much the plaintiff was damaged.
AN effective medicine for kidney dis
eases, low fevers and nervous prostration
and well worthy OF a trial, is Browns Iror