Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1899-01-27
John T. Baker, for RESPONDENT.
L. 5. harrington, for appellants.
OPINION-BY BHLKNAP, J.

L IL HtAtIl"otEA " HI tSN-C AA'N">
by Len Wines and wife to the Elko-Tus-
carora Mercantile Company upon prem
ises known as the Len Wines place, in
Ruby Valley N Elko County. He was
advised by the Nice-President of the
Company to take possession of the prop
erty. Acting upon the advice he and two
others took peaceable possession. He re-
manned so 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 Otlense of trespass. The
warrant was issued by the Justice of the
Peace of South Ruby Township in a
au Sc entitled, The State of Nevada,
oPlaintitf, vs.. {. p. StroZzi, ct al, Defend
ants" wherein defendants We're charged
with torcible 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, and finally
dismissed without trial, at the instance of
one Of the defendants. Upon the return
of plaintiff after arrest he was met by the
other defendant at the gate of the prenli-
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 actiO1
brought before the Justice that magistrate
had 10 jurisdiction of the action Of torci-
bic entry and unlawful detainer, which
appellants seemed to have attempted to
institute. The constitution cOHterS juris-
diction upon the District Courts Of ac-
tons of this nature. Moreover, tn" var
rant described an offense |unhnovn the
criminal statutes Of the State.
1t is unnecessary to cite authorIt1 t"
the effect that the proceedings before the
Justice were absolutely void and that she
warrant could not afford any justification
| for the arrest.
Appellants assign a. error tue refusal
Of the our to give two certain instruc-'
tions asked Of and refused by the court,
and also to the charge Of the court.
The first of these prtSceds upon thca a.
sumption th- tie Justices Court has,
Jurisdiction r. thu ~v.tje.. This was rou-
trary to tt> fact, and the instruction was
therefor, inappiir&ole. Without consld-
ering other ohitrtIon~ t. the second in
struct.pu.i it - not the law, t.att " r"uI-
pldinant at whose instance an arrest has
been made can Justify under 4 void pro
cess. : Am. 4 Ing. EncH, p, 6-". tul CO
: ses cited.
~ We're told jamong other thiac>1 that
the question whether p}ain.iI was q tres
passer or who owned the property was
immaterial. That the only question was,
did the defendants have plaintiff arrested
maliciously and without probable cause.
e Appellants claim that the effect of this
was to deprive them of the defense OF
probable cause. The question OF proba-
< BILE cause did not depend upon the fact
ST Strozzi's actual guilt, but whether APP
pellants as reasonable men had cause tC
believe him guilty. The rule announced
by the court was more liberal to appel
:. lants than thai contended for by them
selves.
1t is claimed that the judgment for 500
damages is excessive. There was testi
mony tending to show bad faith upOnt tn
part of defendants in re-taking posses
sion of the property during the absenc
h of plaintiff under arrest, and, this Of it
self, fully supports the verdict and judg
ment.
The judgment and order denying a ne
ton for new trial are affirmed.
concur: BoNNIPIELD, CD.
Massey, J. did not participate in the d
cisien.
Filed January II, 1899.
. Eugene Howell.
Secretary Of State and ex -ofic
Clerk of the Supreme Court
Filed with printer for publication Jar
uary II, 1893. Eugene Howell