Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1899-02-14

rt.i- fist 20 said lodging house, went to
| Mrs, McGuffee's room and asked her
-; whether she WAS ready to go up to Nc
Namee's house; that she said in replv
that she was not feeling well and for
! Warren to go up and bring McNamee
| down; that Warren went, and told Nc
; Nance that Mrs. Mc(tuffee wanted to see
him about the wafer suit and the notes
! she held against tn e NeStiitts: and thar
she was sick or she would come up: that
, McE3nlee went down with Warren to
Mrs. McGutfee's ROOM, met her there and
McNamee asked her what she wanted
that she replied, that she wanted to see
hin about the Nesbitt notes and the
| proposition made to her by Warren: that
McNamee advised her as to the notes
and asked her what proposition Warren
had made; that she replied that it was for
her to testify that the north springs were
and always had been her daughter Ag-
gie's: that Mrs. Nfc.Guffee said that if
there was enough in it She might consider
the matter: that McNanec replied to her
that he was not there on that kind of bus
, mess; that then sine said that she would
no testify that these north springs were
and always had been Aggie's for all the
money DeLamar had: that McNamee
then spoke up and said to her that was
right that h must not testify to my
thing, wrong; that she must testify TO the
truth if she lost everything; that McNa-
NEE said to her that she must not testify
to anything unless she could do so ruth
fully and conscientiously; that Mrs. Nc
Gutfee said she might be willing to take
a trip if there was enough in it for her,
that McNamee told her that that would
do her no good Dec g they could prove
the same facts by other witnesses, and if
he had thought that was what she wanted
him for he would not have come down.
The said evidence also tended to prove
that McNamee had no information of any
proposition having been made by War
rem to Mrs. McGutfee with reference to
her said testimony until he was in
formed as aforesaid by Mrs. McGutfee at
said interview. 1t also tended to prove
that defendant George Nesbitt who was
in the adjoining room heard what was
said by and between McNamee and Mrs.
"S given III Sdlo IilttI
view, and that on the next day after the
said interview, the day on which the said
criminal prosecution was instituted,
George Nesbitt, in the presence of Mrs
McGuffee, J. III. Mcmillan, James Nesbitt
and Mike Owen said that he did not
know whether MeNamee was in it or rot,
but that he was as much in the mud as
Warren was in the mire, and that they.
the defendants, Intended to nave McNa-
NEE arrested. and that it would help
them to win the water suit.
Mike Owen, who was in the adjoining
room with George Nesbitt during said
Interview at the request of defendants to
witness the conversation at said inter
view, was a witness on the part of the
plaintiff. and his evidence and the evil
dence of McName~ tend to show as above
stated.
From said evidence we are of opinion
that the plaintiff showed want of proba-
bic cause on the part of the defendants in
said criminal preservation as against Me
Nance, the plajntiu herein: that defend
ants did not have a reasonable ground
supported by facts "li circumstances as
would warrant 4 :u,tiou> man in the be-
lief that McNaul-a WAS guilty of the of
Tense charged ag3<r~t him
From want OF printable cause malice
may be presumed. AS to the third
ground for the motion there was no evi.
dencc hen in the case that the defendants
had even consulted any attorney in tn.
matter.
Counsel contend that the verdict of tn,
jury is not supported by the evidence ano
is contrary thereto. The evidence as ii
nally submitted i'll the case is conflictin,
as to some material matters. 1t is not TO
this court to d eterInine the comparativ
weight of such evidence. There is evi
dence on the part of the plaintiff, if tru,
sufficient to support the verdict. The ju
ry are the judges of the credibility c
p, witnesses. The contention of couns
. that the court erred in refusing defend
ants instruction No. 3 must be disrt
garded as no objections or exceptions az
pear to have been made to said action {
: the court. CMcInnis VS.. McGurn, So Pa
=; "a New
. AS a defense to the action the defenC
u ants alleged in their answer: THAT b.
fore making the complaint against sal
a plaintiff mentioned in said complain
they consulted with practicing attorney
of said State, learned in the law, and a
q ter laying all Of the facts before the
q acted upon their advice" The defent
: ants testified to the effect that they CO..
l suited their attorneys, laid all the fac
: before them and acted on their advice
:. prosecuting the plaintiff.
l. Doubtless the jury gave credit to Il
II evidence given on the part of the plant
l. as to what the facts were, if so, they cou
r reasonably conclude that the defendan
I'd did not state all the material facts with
a their knowledge to said attorneys, or
they did that said attorneys did not a
~ wise the prosecution of McNamee.
id was for the jury to determine, from
Z. the evidence, and the circumstances di
ad closed, whether or not the defendants
a good faith laid all the facts and circul