Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1899-01-26
John T. Baker, for respondent.
+. S. Harrington, for appellants.
OPINION-BY BELKNAP. !.

Idiiltlli pufcIlaSsu a mortgage MACS
by len Wines and wife to the Elk0-Tus-
carora Mercantile Company upon prem.
lseS known as the Len Wines place. il
Ruby Valley in EikO County. He was
advised by the Nice-President of the
Company 10 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 offense of trespass. The
warrant was issued by the Justice of the
Peace of South Ruby Township in a
ause entitled. The State of Nevada,
oPlaintijf, vs.. c. p. Strozzi, ct al, Defend
ants, wherein defendants were charged
with fOrcible 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 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
brought before the Justice that magistrate
had no jurisdiction of the action of torci-
bic entry and unlawful detaincr, which
appellants seemed to have attempted to
institute. The constitution coHters juris-
dictiOn upon the District Courts of ac-
tons of this nature. Moreover. he var
rant described an offense unknOlu v,the
criminal statutes Of the State.
1t is unnecessary to cite authority f.;
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 as error the refusal
of the court TO give two certain instruc-
tons asked OF and refused by the court,
and also to the charge of the court.
The first of these proceeds upon tn a~-
sumption tina the J'>Jice's Court ha..
.url~liction OF ia" ctj~o. This was c't-
trary to the tact, and the instruction was
therefor. iuapFlicaDIe. Without consld-
ering other objections to the second in
>trurtiou. it is NOT 5he law. latl a cum-
pIainant al whr Instance an arrest mas
been made can Justify unde. a v"i'i pro
cess. : Am. i Eng. Ency. y. SO, and ca
SEES cited.
~ were told (anong other things} that
the question whether plaintiff Was Il tres
passer or who owned the property was
immaterial. That the only que VAS,
did the defendants have plain \ led
maliciously and without pro " Use,
Appellants claim that the &C this
was to deprive them of tt = .se of
probable cause. The questlo" II proba-
BILE cause did not depend upon the fact
ST Strozzi's actual guilt, but whether APP
pellants as reasonable men had cause to
believe him guilty. The rule announced
by the court was more liberal to appel
lants than tina contended for by them
selves.
1t is claimed that the Judgment for Szot
damages is excessive. There was testi
mony tending to show bad faith upon the
part of defendants in re-taking posses
sion of the property during the absences
. of plaintiff under arrest, and, this of it
self, fully supports the verdict and judg
ment.
The Judgment and order denying a mo
ton for new trial are affirmed.
concur: BONNIPIELD, C.J.
Massey, J. did not participate in the dc
cision.
Filed January II, 1899.
Eugene Howell.
Secretary Of State and ex-ofici
Clerk of the Supreme Court.
Filed with printer for publication Jan
uary II, 1899. Eugene Howell.