Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1899-02-08
John +. Baker, for RESPONDENT.
f. s. Harrington, for appellants.
DPiNION-BT BELkSAr. J.

ny Len HItieS d1li Vile 40 Iiic tikO- ilS-
carora Mercantile Company upon prem
Uses known as the Len Wines place. in
Ruby Valley IN EIko County. He was
advised by the Nire-PresiGent Of the
Company t. take possession OF the prop
rty. Acting upon the advice he and two
others o peaceable possession. He re
manned 80 in the possession for two
weeks when he and his companions were
arrested by the Constable Of Ruby Val
ley Township upon a warrant charging
them with the otfense of tre~paSs The
warrant was issued by the Justice of the
Peace of South Ruby Township in a
Gause cutitled, The State OF Nevada,
Plaintiff, IS. e. P. Strozzi, et al, Def5n1-
ants" wherein defendants We're charged
with t'rcible entry and unlawful detain-
er Of The above mentioned mortgaged
property. They were brought to the Jus
tees Court, a distance of eight miles,
when the case was continued aud finally
dismissed without trial, at the instance of
one of the defendants. Upon the return
Of plaintiff after arrest he was met 10y the
other defendant at the gate of the preini-
ses and forbidden to enter.
Upon substantially these facts a jury in
an action for false imprisonment returned
a verdict for $500 damages.
1t must be conceded that in the action
! Wrought before the Justice that magistrate
had no jurisdiction of the action of forci-
| bic entry and unlawful detalner. which
appellants seemed to have attempted to
institute. The constitution coEfers juris-
diction upon the District Courts of ac-
tons of this nature. Moreover, e. " 81
rant described An offense unknowu t"t!.N
criminal statute of the State.
1t is unnecessary to cite authority to
the effect that the proceedings before the
Justice were absolutely void and that the
warrant could not afford any Justification
for the arrest.
Appellants assign as error III" refusal
of the court To give two certain i@I-Lric-
tions asked of and refused h" sac court,
ana also to the ch&rEe"fth the our
The first of these proceeds up>n the as
sumption that the Justices Court mad
Jurisdiction of ;he van~c. Tti~ WAS coll
trary to the fact, an3 III" il~jr5yt.ou MIS-
therefor, iuapplicAble. Without consid-
rring ether @ ioctjous % the second in
>trurtion, ii is not the Law. that a COM
been made eau Justify under n Nfi.! pro
cess. 7Am. & Eng. Ency. p.67a, and "a
Ses cited.
ry were told (among ,:i' .tjrgs> tina
> the question whether ~, Il MAS a tres,
paSser or who ownet = property was
immater;ai. That the Il s,N"~'i n was
did the defendants haF. - 20 arrested
maliciously and without proc! : cause
Appellants claim that the effect of thi'
70 was TO deprive them of the defense o
probable cause. The question of proba
bic cause did not depend upon the fac
ST Strozzi's actual guilt, but whether ap
pellants as reasonable men had cause t
believe him guilty. The rule announce
by the court was more liberal to appel
lauts than tina contended for by them
sel yes.
1t is claimed that the judgment for SO
damages IL excessive. There was test
mony tending to show bad faith upon tn
part of defendants in re-taking posses
sion of the property during the ahsenc
OF plaintiff under arrest. and, this of i
self, fully supports the verdict and iuds
ment.
The Judgment aud order denying a mt
ton for new trial are affirmed.
CONCUR: BoNNIFIELn u.
Massey, J.. did not participate in the d
riSinn.
a. tllei January Il, 1853.
Eugene Howell.
Secretary Of State and OK -offic
Clerk of he Supreme Court.
Filed " it'll printer for publication Jai
uary Il, 1900. Eugene Howell.