Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1899-02-10
nn1NIoH-ay BNi.N ~. J..

Piaiutjnt purchased = mortgage maie
by Len Wines and VIE to the Etko-IkG*-
.,trora Mercantile c0.sparlF ;'Enn pTc1ye~
Uses known as the Len Wines place. 1T
Ralby Valley in Elko County. he was
| advised by the Vice-psesident Of the
/ Company to take possession Of t,e' prop
ztv. Acting upon the advice he and tNo
others took peace@ble possession. BE re-
! manned so in the possession fos tWo
weeks when he aud his coanpanionswere
arrested by the Constable of Ruby Val
ley Township upon a w@rrant charging
| them with the offeslse of treSpass. Ehet
warrant was issued ny the Justice of she ]
Peace of South R;t5y Township III d /
cause entitled. THE state of Nevada, I
Plainsitf, W. {. ?. Strozzi- e. A. oatesa-
ants wherein defendants were ch rGeal |
with tnrcible entry aud unlswfu! detaii+
er ~. ehe 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 triaE. at theinstance of
one of the defendants. Upon the return
of plaintiff after arrest he was met by the
other defendant at the gate of the prenl-
SEES and forbidden to enter.
Upon substantially these facts a jury IN
an action for false Imprisonment returned
"A verdict for 500 damages.
1t must he conceded that in the action
sroughl before the JuStire that magistrate
mad no jurisdiction of the action of forcl-
bic entry and unlawful detainer, which
appellants seemed t. have attempted TO
institute. The constitution eoEiers juris-
H. .-t.s Jyr at a
y tons of this nature. Moreover, "a var
rant described an offe!ise unkn""A I" ne
criminal statutes of the State.
1t is unnecessary to cite authority I"
the effect that the proceedings before the
Justice were absolutely void and that the
- warrant could not afford any justification
for the arrest.
Appellants aSslgn AS error iii" refusal!
of the court to- give two certain lnStr"c-
tons asked OF aud refused b. IL" court,
and also to the charge Of the court.
IS The first of these rrocee Il ur'.' the as
isamptian that the Justices Court h."i
5nri>Ii-tI~u ni the ctH~e. tal~ W"o T"+'-
1ravy to tae fact, a31t the i2~t.'rt'"n Nt.
therefor, inapp!i>*.hIe. W}th"nt """S'd
pring other pIjec;ion~ to the sc 1"'',. IN
.eS strurtion, it is not III" law, that a com
pi.inaut at whose iu-tanc. su arrest fa
been made can Justify under = void pro
cess. ! An.& tng. E,tcy. p,l';', "!!'' ga
ses cited.
~ We're told among ether thugs! tina
he the question whether plaintiff "*S a tres
passer or who Owned the property w"
immateria,. That the only quceti n wa
~ did the Lefenlants have plaintiff arreSte
maliriously and without probable cau~
Appellant~ claim thtt the effect OF IL
was, TO deprive them of the defense
probable cause. The question OF prob
Die cause did not depend upon the III
y, ST Strozzi's actual guilt, but whether a
IL pellauts AS reasonable men had cause
believe him guilty. The rule announc
by the court was more liberal to app
lants than that contenied for by tiiel
selves.
It is claimed that the Judgment for s
~ damages is excessive. There WAS tes
" mouy tending to shoW~ba'i falLh upon
part of defendants in re-takIng poss'
-- sion Of the property during the abse1
of plaintiff under arrest, and, this OF
self. fallv supports the yer lict and jut
nent>
The Judgment aud order denying a Il
) ton for new trial are affirmed.
concur: BoNNIFIEi.D, CD.
Massey. J. did not participate III the
tisian-
Faoa' Filed January II, 1909.
Eugene Howell.
Secretary Of State and ex-nf1
Clerk of the Supreme Coui
Filed with printer for publication }
uary II, 1899. Eugene Howell