Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1899-02-11
OPINIOE-BY BELkNAP, j.

| by Len Wines and wife to the EIkO-Tus-
carora Mercantile Company upon prem
ises known as the Len Wines place. III
Ruby Valley in EIko County. He was
advised by the NiCe-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 witt 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. Strozzi, ct al, Defend
ants" wherein defendants We're charged
with fprcible entry and unlawful detain-
er of he above mentioned mortgaged
r ,perty. They were brought to the JUS
tice's 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 +" enter.
Upon substantially these facts a jury in
Al action for false Imprisonment returned
a verdict for 800 damages.
1t must be conceded that in the action
brought hef,re the Justice that magistrate
had no Jurisdiction of the action of fOrci-
bic entry and unlawful dettiner, which
appellants seemed to nave attempted to
institute. The constitution cOEfers juris.
diction upon the District Courts of &C
tons of this nature. Moreover, Ia AR
rant described an otfense unknown I"t'p"
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 frTpr 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 the az
sumption that the J'.Ntjc''> Court had
jurisdiction Of tho cause. T:'. was con-
trary to the fact, ami the iu-tr:r .a1. rt~
therefor, inapplirable. Without r"1'slI-
triug other objections to the second! II
. ~truction, it is not the law, that a ON
plainaut III who's" Instance an a"v.-t i".~
been made can Justify uni-ra 1.i' ,'t'~
cess. Am. < Eng. Eucy. y. t7", and ol-
SEES cited.
~ were told (amnHg other th!ngs> tina.
the question whether plaintiff was Il tres
passer or who owned the property wa
iinmaterial. hat the only question WAS
Z did the defendants have plaintiff ARRESTED
" maliciously and without probable cause
Appellants claim thu the effect Of thi
MI was TO deprive them Of the defense q
probable cause. The question of proba
BILE cause did not depend upon the fac
!, ST Strozzi's actual guilt, but whether az
pellants As reasonable men had cause t
believe hin guilty. The rule announce
by the court was more liberal to appel
lauts than that contended for by them
selves.
1t is claimed that the judgment for 80
, damages is excessive. There was test
mony tending to show bad faith upont tn
part of defendants in re-taking posse:
- sion of the property during the absens
Of plaintiff under arrest, and, this of i
SUI, lHiIf SupPoitS Vic @ciiitI 'ht J'us
ment.
The judgment and order denying a m
ton for new TRIAL are affirmed.
concur: BONNIFIELD, G. j.
Massey, J. did not participate in the d
riSion.
Filed January Il, 1899.
Eugene Howell.
Secretary of State and exotic
Clerk of the Supreme Court.
Filled with printer for publication Jal
uary II, 1899. Eugene Howell.