The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-04-21
Afirmed on both Appeals. Opinion Tyson. c. J., Dowdell and Mcclellan. ILL. concur.
GAMBILL vs. FuoUA.

GAMBILL vs. FuQUA
 Malicious Prosecution and False I'm. risonment-fpccided Dec. 6 1906 42 So. Rep. 73s.
 1. Pleading; inconsistent defenses Pleas which deny the arrest and seek to set up facts justifying the same, are demurrable, for the denial is available under the general issue and Justification is inconsistent with <the denial.
 ?. Principal and agent; evidence oi | unsupported declaration of an agent is incompetent to prove his authority as such.
 3. Same; powers of agent.--An agent has no implied power to do . thing which his princ,pa is not au- thorized to do.
 A Arrest; authority to arrest; he- cessity for warrant.-The deputy H. cense inspector has no authority for making arrest for violation of the H. cense law without a warrant D. Trial; issue for jury; evidence to sustain.-If there is no evidence of prior authority or subsequent rati- ication of the act of the alleged agent, N the question of prior authority or sub- sequent ratification cannot be properly left to determination of a jury.
 6. False Imprisonment; evidence of Qualifications; admissibility under pleadings.-Questions to the plaintiff as to whom he sold milk nnd as to whether the deputy license inspec- tor knew at the time that he was engaged in the milk business were improper in an action by plaintiff for false Imprisonment under an arrest by the deputy of the defendant, who was license inspector, for selling milk with out license; such questions tended to show Justification which was not spe- cially pleaded, and such evidence was inadmissible under the general issue.
 z. Appeal; review harmless error; relevant evidence; subsequent admis- sion.-If it was error 10 sustain un objection to question concerning the election as special policemen of the man who arrested plaintiff, it was cured by the subsequent admission of testimony from the same witness that as chairman of the police board, he swore such person in as special police man.
 S. False imprisonment; actions; evil dence.-Where the action was for false Imprisonment against a license 1n- spector, it was competent to show that the person making the arrest was a deputy of the defendant during the month in which the arrest was made.
 g. Trial instructions ignoring evil dence.-Where the arrest was made by an alleged agent of defendant, an in- struction that a statement made by the agent at the time of the arrest was not admissible to show authority from defendant to do so, was erron- eous in ignoring evidence tending to show ratification and authority.
 10. Same.-Where the arrest was made by the alleged agent of defen- dant, a charge that the verdict must be for the defendant, unless plaintiff arrested defendant or caused him to be arrested, was misleading and ig- nored liability on ratification of the agents act and properly refused.
 II. Same; application of instruc- tions to pleading and evidence.-An instruction which alleges that if de- fendant sold milk in the presence or the deputy, the latter had authority to arrest him, there being no evil dence of such a sale and no plea of justification, was properly refused
 12 Damages; instructions.-An in struction that unless the jury believe that damages should he awarded as a punishment for the false imprison- ment, then only actual damages should be given, and if no actual damages were sustained, then the verdict should be for nominal damages. was properly refused as misleading.
 IS. Trial: instructions ignoring evil dence:-.Where the arrest was made by