Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1899-02-12
John T. Baker, for respondent.
T.. :. Harrington, for appellants.
OPINION-BY BELK NAP, j.

1 !tilitlii ttIItildSSt Il mortgage illtitiG
by Len Wines and wife to the Elko-Tus-
carora Mercantile Company upon prem
ises known as the Len Wines place, in
Ruby Valley in EIko County. He was
advised by the Eice-President Of the
Company to take possession of the prop
rty. 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 offense of trespass. The
warrant was issued by the Justice of the
Peace of South Ruby Township in a
! cause entitled, The State of Nevada,
Plaintiff, vs.. c. p. S~trozzi, ct al, Defend
ants" wherein defendants were chargel
with forcible entry and unlawful detain-
er o.. the above mentioned mortgaged
r ,perty. 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 premi-
ses and forbidden to enter.
Upon substantially these facts a jury in
an action for false imprisonment returned
a verdict for 800 damages.
1t must be conceded that in the action
brought before the Justice that magistrate
had no jurisdiction of the action of forci-
BILE entry and unlawful detainer, which
appellants seemed to have attempted to
institute. The constitution coEferS juris-
diction upon the District Courts of ac-
tons of this nature. Moreover, -" var
rant described an offense unknown ;"th@
criminal statutes 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 the refusal
of the court to give two certain instru,-
tion~ asked of and refusel by the court,
and also to the charge of the court.
The first OF these proceeds upon the as
sumption that the Justices court had
jurisdiction of the cau~e. This WAS r"n-
trary to the fact. and the instruction Wa
therefor, iuarplirable. Without consld-
ering other objection, to the se"oMd in
; struction, it is not the law, that d com
plainant at whose instance an arrest -
been made can justify under a void pro
cess. IAN. Il Eng. Ency. y. b11, and ca
Ses cited.
ry were told (anong other things, tina
q the question whether plaintiff was a tres
passer or WHO owned the property wa
immaterial. That the only question was
did the defendants have plaintiff arre>te1
naliciously and without probable cau>c
Appellants claim III 1t the effect of hi
was to deprive them Of the defense "
probable cause. The question of proba
BILE 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
lants than that contended for by them
selves.
1t is claimed that the Judgment for sc
damages is excessive. There WAS test
" mopy tending to show bad faith upon tn
part of defendants in re-taking posses
sion of the property during the abse'c
Of plaintiff under arrest, and. this of i
self, fully supports the verdict and judi
ment.
The Judgment and order denying a n,'
ton for new trial arc affirmed.
concur: BONNIFIELD, CD.
Massey, J. did not participate in the d
cisinn.
d. Filel January II, 1899.
Eugene Howell.
Secretary OF State and exotic
Clerk of the Supreme Court.
Filed with printer for publication jan
uary II, 1899. Eugene Howell.