Title: MILLER v WATKINS
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 81-422
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: September 30, 1982

N o . 81-422 I N T H E SUPREME COURT O F T H E STATE O F MONTANA BOB EIILLER, P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, -VS- BILL WATKINS and L A V O N N E WATKINS, Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e Fourteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Ih and f o r t h e County of Musselshell, The Honorable Nat Allen, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Leaphart Law Firm; C. W. Leaphart, Jr., Helena, Montana For Respondents : Susan S t e a r n s , Lakewood, Colorado - - Submitted on B r i e f s : J u l y i 5 , 1982 Decided: September 3 0 , 1982 F i l e d : S i p 3 0 1982 Mr. J u s t i c e Fred J. Weber d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . Bob M i l l e r , p l a i n t i f i and a p p e l l a n t , b r o u g h t t h i s a c t i o n i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e Fourteentl? J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , t 4 u s s e l s h e l l County, t o r e c o v e r damages f o r b r e a c h of c o n t r a c t . B i l l Watkins, d e f e n d a n t and r e s p o n d e n t , p l e d t h e a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e of a c c o r d and s a t i s f a c t i o n f o r a l l c o u n t s of M i l l e r ' s c o m p l a i n t . Watkins a l s o f i l e d a c o u n t e r - c l a i m a g a i n s t M i l l e r f o r damages f o r b r e a c h of c o n t r a c t , u n j u s t e n r i c h m e n t , m a l i c i o u s p r o s e c u t i o n , and d e f a m a t i o n . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t s i t t i n g w i t h o u t a j u r y found i n f a v o r o f Watkins denying Miller r e l i e f on a l l c o u n t s e x c e p t f o r a $1,500 payment due on one h o r s e . The c o u r t awarded Watkins a c t u a l damages on t h e b r e a c h of c o n t r a c t f o r $23,000; a c t u a l damages i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h t h e m a l i c i o u s p r o s e c u t i o n of $30,000; a c t u a l damages f o r l i b e l and s l a n d e r i n t h e amount o f $25,000; and p u n i t i v e damages i n t h e amount of $50,000. M i l l e r a p p e a l s . W e a f f i r m . The f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s w i l l be d i s c u s s e d : (1) N a s s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l t o s u p p o r t t h e f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law? ( 2 ) Were t h e e l e m e n t s n e c e s s a r y t o p r o v e a m a l i c i o u s p r o s e c u t i o n a c t i o n p r e s e n t ? ( 3 ) Was e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d t o s u p p o r t t h e damage awards? B i l l and LaVonne Watkins a r e husband and w i f e and j o i n t l y own and o p e r a t e a p u b l i c s t a b l e . Watkins h a n d l e s a l l p h a s e s o f t h e b u s i n e s s c o n c e r n i n g t h e h o r s e s , i n c l u d i n g t h e b r e e d i n g , t r a i n i n g , r a i s i n g , r a c i n g and buying and s e P l l n g of t h e h o r s e s . H e owns s e v e r a l q u a l i t y s t a l l i o n s which he keeps a s s t u d s f o r breeding p u r p o s e s and he is a member i n good s t a n d i n g o f t h e American Q u a r t e r Horse Asso- c i a t i o n (AQHA). M i l l e r owns and o p e r a t e s a ranch n e a r J o r d a n , Montana, i n G a r f i e l d County, and is engaged i n t h e b u s i n e s s of r a i s i n g h o r s e s . P r i o r t o 1969, Miller owned many h o r s e s which were r e g i s t e r e d w i t h t h e AQHA. However, i n 1969, M l l l e r was suspended from t h e AQHA f o r l i f e and l o s t t h e r i g h t t o have h i s h o r s e s r e g i s t e r e d . I n l a t e 1968 o r e a r l y 1969, p r i o r t o h i s s u s p e n s i o n , Miller t r a n s f e r r e d ownership of a l l of h i s r e g i s t e r e d q u a r t e r h o r s e s t o two of h i s r e l a t i v e s , D r . Purdom and D r . Shreeves of C a l i f o r n i a , and e n t e r e d i n t o a p a r t n e r s h i p agreement w i t h them a s a p a r t o f t h e t r a n s f e r . J a c k i e O a k e s , a / k / a J a c k i e F l e m i n g , a / k / a J a c k i e M i l l e r , who is c u r r e n t l y known a s J a c k i e K e r r i c k ( J a c k i e O a k e s ) , is a member of t h e AQHA and h a s n o t been suspended from membership t h e r e i n . I n 1972, J a c k i e Oakes and M i l l e r became a c q u a i n t e d through v a r i o u s h o r s e d e a l s and soon t h e r e a f t e r e n t e r e d i n t o a p a r t n e r s h i p a r r a n g e m e n t f o r buying and s e l l i n g h o r s e s . I n 1972, Milier was e x p e r i e n c i n g d i f f i c u l t i e s w i t h Drs. Purdom and Shreeves. H e ended h i s p a r t n e r s h i p w i t h t h e d o c t o r s and had t h e r e g i s t r a t i o n of a l l o f t h e h o r s e s t r a n s - f e r r e d t o J a c k i e Oakes. I t was a t t h i s t i m e t h a t M i l l e r and J a c k i e Oakes e n t e r e d i n t o some t y p e of a b u s i n e s s a r r a n g e - ment r e g a r d i n g t h e ownership of t h e h o r s e s and t h e i r o f f - s p r i n g , s i n c e J a c k i e Oakes could r e g i s t e r h o r s e s w i t h t h e AQHA. I n 1971 o r 1972, f o r t y t o f i f t y r e g i s t e r e d q u a r t e r horses were moved to Miller's ranch near Jordan. Prior to the year 1974, Jackie commenced residing with Miller, and the two parties held themselves out to the general public as man and wife, with each authorized to transact business for and on behalf of the other with regard to the horses. During the fall of 1974, Miller and Jackie took a trip to Watkins' ranch. Miller introduced Jackie as his wife and partner indicating that Jackie had full authority to transact business regarding the horses owned jointly by herself and Miller pursuant to her business relationship, as well as her personal relationship with Miller. During that meeting, Watkins entered into a contract with Miller and Jackie, by which Watkins would breed the Miller-Bakes mares with his stallions. The colts born of that arrangement would be registered quarter horses and would be split equally between Watkins and Miller-Oakes. The contract was renewed annually for three years and Miller-Oakes brought mares to the Watkins ranch in 1975, 1976, and 1977. On October 8, 1974, the Cloverleaf brand, which was owned by Miller or by the Cloverleaf Land and Livestock Company, a Montana corporation, of which Miller was either the sole or majority shareholder, was transferred to Jackie Oakes and recorded in the Montana Brand Off ice. After the brand had been transferred to Jackie Oakes, various colts and yearlings were branded with the Cloverleaf brand. In the spring of 1975, pursuant to the breeding agree- ment, twenty-one head of Miller-Oakes mares were delivered to Watkins' ranch for the purpose of breeding. Several Miller-Oakes colts were either by the side of the mares at t h e time they were d e l i v e r e d o r born a t Watkins' ranch. Uuring t h e summer of 1975, a l l of t h e mares and a l l of t h e c o l t s , w l t h t h e e x c e p t i o n of one which d i e d a t Watkins' ranch, were r e t u r n e d t o M i l l e r and/or J a c k i e Oakes. I n t h e s p r i n g of 1976, a t o t a l of f o u r t e e n Miller- Oakes mares were d e l i v e r e d t o Watkins' ranch f o r t h e purpose o i breeding. Some of t h e mares had c o l t s by t h e i r s i d e and some of t h e mares f o a l e d d u r i n g t h e summer of 1976. A l l o f t h e s e c o l t s were t h e r e s u l t of t h e b r e e d i n g of t h e 1975 s e a s o n and were " p a r t n e r s h i p c o l t s " p u r s u a n t t o t h e agree- ment o f t h e p a r t i e s . F i f t e e n B r e e d e r ' s C e r t i f i c a t e s were i s s u e d by Watkins i n d i c a t i n g t h a t a t o t a l of f i f t e e n c o l t s had been born a s a r e s u l t of t h e 1975 b r e e d i n g season. A l l of t h e Miller-Oakes mares and a l l of t h e p a r t n e r - s h i p c o l t s were r e t u r n e d t o M i l l e r and/or J a c k i e Oakes, w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n of two of t h e p a r t n e r s h i p c o l t s which were r e t a i n e d by Watkins a s a d i s t r i b u t i o n . One of t h e s e c o l t s which was r e t a i n e d was t h e Wicked F e l i t a c o l t . I n t h e s p r i n g of 1977, a t o t a l of t h i r t y Miller-Oakes mares were d e l i v e r e d t o Watkins' ranch f o r breeding pur- poses. 3nce a g a i n , some of t h e mares had c o l t s a t t h e i r s l d e and o t h e r s f o a l e d a t Watkins' ranch d u r i n g t h e b r e e d i n g season. During t h e summer of 1977, a f t e r having been b r e d , a l l of t h e mares w i t h t h e i r c o l t s ( a l l c o l t s being p a r t n e r - s h i p c o l t s ) were r e t u r n e d t o M i l l e r ' s ranch i n J o r d a n . The Miller-Oakes mares were n o t d e l i v e r e d t o Watkins' ranch d u r i n g t h e s p r i n g of 1978, a s Watkins r e f u s e d t o c o n t i n u e breeding t h e mares f o r two r e a s o n s . F i r s t , he was dissatisfied w i t h t h e f a i l u r e t o d i v i d e t h e c o l t c r o p s p u r s u a n t t o t h e agreement, and s e c o n d l y , Miller and Oakes had f a i l e d t o t a k e t h e n e c e s s a r y s t e p s t o r e g i s t e r t h e c o l t s , t h e r e b y breaching t h e i r p o r t i o n of t h e c o n t r a c t and r e n d e r i n g t h e c o l t s less v a l u a b l e . F u r t h e r , by 1978, t h e Miller-Oakes p a r t n e r s h i p had d i s i n t e g r a t e d . J a c k i e was no l o n g e r r e s i d i n g w i t h M i l l e r and e v i d e n t l y was n o t a p a r t of h i s b u s i n e s s arrangements. Once J a c k i e was no l o n g e r a p a r t of M i l l e r ' s b u s i n e s s , it was v e r y d o u b t f u l t h a t c o l t s born from t h e breeding arrangements c o u l d e v e r be r e g i s t e r e d w i t h t h e AQHA s i n c e M i l l e r was suspended from t h a t o r g a n i z a t i o n . Aside from t h e d i s p u t e over t h e s p l i t t i n g of t h e p a r t - n e r s h i p c o l t s , Miller a l s o claimed t h a t Watkins had pur- chased s e v e r a l h o r s e s from Miller-Oakes, and t h a t M i l l e r had never been compensated f o r t h e h o r s e s . Watkins on t h e o t h e r hand a l l e g e d a c c o r d and s a t i s f a c t i o n by r e a s o n of payment i n f u l l i n h i s answer w i t h r e s p e c t t o each of t h e s e h o r s e s . I n June 1978, Miller approached two brand i n s p e c t o r s a l l e g i n g t h a t Watkins had s t o l e n t h e s e h o r s e s . The brand i n s p e c t o r s , t o g e t h e r w i t h M i l l e r , approached t h e county a t t o r n e y s i n M u s s e l s h e l l and Fergus C o u n t i e s , r e s u l t i n g i n t h e f i l i n g of t h r e e c r i m i n a l a c t i o n s a g a i n s t Watkins f o r h o r s e t h e f t . Each of t h e c r i m i n a l a c t i o n s was d i s m i s s e d w i t h p r e j u d i c e . A s a r e s u l t of M i l l e r ' s c o m p l a i n t , Watkins c o u n t e r - c i a i r n e d f o r m a l i c i o u s p r o s e c t i o n , l i b e l and s l a n d e r , r e q u e s t i n g a c t u a l and p u n i t i v e damages. I n a d d i t i o n , vdatkins claimed a c t u a l damages f o r f a i l u r e t o r e c e i v e h i s s h a r e of t h e p a r t n e r s h i p c o l t s , a s w e l l a s f o r h i s e x p e n s e s and a c t u a l damages i n c a r e , f e e d i n g and b r e e d i n g of Miller's h o r s e s . I Was s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l t o s u p p o r t t h e f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law? Miller b a s e s h i s argument on h i s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t he and Watkins " a r e r e a l l y two o l d h o r s e t h i e v e s " and t h a t n e i t h e r can r e a l l y be b e l i e v e d and t h a t t h e t h i r d p r i n c i p a l w i t n e s s , J a c k i e Oakes, h a s an e x t r e m e l y u n r e l i a b l e memory and a d m i t s l y i n g t o t h e county a t t o r n e y of M u s s e l s h e l l County. There was a l s o t e s t i m o n y t h a t some of t h e b i l l s of s a l e were prepared a s l a t e a s 1978 i n a motel room. " T h i s Court w i l l n o t s u b s t i t u t e its judg- ment f o r t h a t of t h e t r i e r of f a c t . W e w i l l c o n s i d e r o n l y whether s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence s u p p o r t s t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s . F i n d i n g s w i l l n o t be o v e r t u r n e d u n l e s s t h e r e is a c l e a r p r e - p o n d e r a n c e o f e v i d e n c e a g a i n s t them, r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t evidence may be weak o r c o n f l i c t i n g , y e t still s u p p o r t t h e f i n d - i n g s . [ C i t a t i o n omitted.] The judgment of t h e t r i a l c o u r t is presumed c o r r e c t , and t h i s Court w i l l draw e v e r y l e g i t i m a t e i n f e r e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h a t presumption." J e n s e n v. J e n s e n ( 1 9 8 1 ) , Mont . I 629 P.2d 765, 768, 38 st.= 927, 9 3 0 . I n a d d i t i o n , evidence w i l l be viewed i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y : "When t h i s Court reviews e v i d e n c e , it w i l l be viewed i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r - a b l e t o t h e p a r t y who p r e v a i l e d i n t h e District Court, and t h e c r e d i b i l i t y of w i t n e s s e s and t h e w e i g h t a s s i g n e d t o t h e i r testimony is f o r t h e D i s t r i c t Court I n a nonjury t r i a l . " P a r k h i l l v. F u s e l i e r ( 1 9 8 1 ) t Mon t . , 632 P.2d 1132, 1135, 3 8 = . ~ e p . 1424,1427. Rule 5 2 ( a ) , Fi.H.Civ.P., p r o v i d e s i n p a r t : " F i n d i n g s of f a c t s h a l l n o t be set a s i d e u n l e s s c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s , and due r e g a r d s h a l l be g i v e n t o t h e o p p o r t u n i t y of t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o judge t h e c r e d i b i l i t y of w i t n e s s e s . " Although t h e r e was c o n f l i c t i n g testimony, w e have reviewed t h e r e c o r d and hold t h a t t h e r e was s u f f i c i e n t c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e f i n d i n g s of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t both i n d i s m i s s i n g t h e plaintiff's c l a i m and i n r u l i n g i n f a v o r of t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s c o u n t e r c l a i m . 11 Were t h e e l e m e n t s n e c e s s a r y t o prove a m a l i c i o u s p r o s e c u t i o n a c t i o n p r e s e n t ? Watkins' c o u n t e r c l a i m r e q u e s t e d a c t u a l and p u n i t i v e damages from M i l l e r f o r t h e m a l i c i o u s p r o s e c t i o n of c r i m i n a l a c t i o n s a g a i n s t him. To prove a m a l i c i o u s p r o s e c u t i o n a c t i o n a g a i n s t M i l l e r , Watkins had t h e burden t o show t h a t : 1. A c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g was i n s t i t u t e d or c o n t i n u e d by M i l l e r a g a i n s t Watkins; 2. The c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g s were t e r m i n a t e d i n f a v o r of Watkins; 3. There was an absence of p r o b a b l e c a u s e f o r t h e c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g s ; and 4. There was m a l i c e o r a p r i m a r y purpose o t h e r t h a n t h a t of b r i n g i n g a c r i m i n a l t o j u s t i c e on t h e p a r t of M i l l e r . Orser v. S t a t e (19781, 178 Mont. 126, 135, 582 P.2d 1227, 1232-1233; W. P r o s s e r , The Law of T o r t s , S 119 a t 835 ( 4 t h ed. 1 9 7 1 ) . C r i m i n a l c o m p l a i n t s f i l e d a g a i n s t Watkins were a s ~ o l l o w s : 1. M u s s e l s h e l l C o u n t y - - t h r e e c o u n t s o t t h e f t ( c r i m i n a l a c t i o n 1065) a. M u r r i e t t a Grey b. Wicked F e l i t a c o l t c. Black D e c k e t t e 2. M u s s e l s h e l l County--one c o u n t of t h e f t ( c r i m i n a l a c t i o n 1077) a . Bean's mare 3 . Feryus County--four c o u n t s of t h e f t : a. Twig Deck g e l d i n g ( s o l d by Watkins t o Brad Hamlett) b. P i s t o l Bar g e l d i n g ( s o l d by Watkins t o Brad Hamlett) c. One g e l d i n g s o l d by Watkins t o Oscar Walter d . One g e l d i n g s o l d by Watkins t o Oscar Walter C r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g s i n s t i t u t e d o r c o n t i n u e d by M i l l e r ----------- ------- a g a i n s t Watkins. M i l l e r contends t h a t he d i d n o t i n s t i t u t e o r c o n t i n u e p r o c e e d i n g s a g a i n s t Watkins b u t t h a t he merely gave brand i n s p e c t o r s i n f o r m a t i o n i n a n e f f o r t t o c o o p e r a t e w i t h t h e a u t h o r i t i e s r e l a t i v e t o t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n and i d e n t i f i e d a n i m a l s i n p o s s e s s i o n of t h i r d p a r t i e s which c a r r i e d h i s brand. During t h e t r i a l , M i l l e r a d m i t t e d going t o t h e M u s s e l s h e l l County a t t o r n e y and informing him t h a t Watkins had s t o l e n h i s h o r s e s and e x p e c t i n g t h a t b a t k i n s would be charged w i t h t h e f t . Miller a l s o c o n t a c t e d J a c k Sedgwick, a n i n v e s t i g a t o r f o r t h e Montana Department of L i v e s t o c k , and informed him and t h e M u s s e l s h e l l County s h e r i f f t h a t Watkins had h i s mare. W e hold t h a t Miller d i d i n s t i t u t e and c o n t i n u e t h e c r i m i n a l c h a r g e s a g a i n s t Watkins. Termination i n Watkins' f a v o r . The n e x t element i n a m a l i c i o u s p r o s e c t i o n a c t i o n is t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e p r o c e e d i n g s i n f a v o r of t h e p l a i n t i f f . The lJlusselshel1 County and Fergus County c o m p l a i n t s wers d i s m i s s e d w i t h p r e j u d i c e f o r l a c k of a speedy t r i a l . M i l l e r contends t h a t t h i s t y p e of d i s m i s s a l is n o t i n f a v o r of Watkins because it d o e s n o t r e f l e c t h i s innocence. I n Lachner v. LaCroix ( 1 9 8 0 ) , 159 Cal.Rptr. 693, 695, 602 P.2d 393, 395, t h e C a l i f o r n i a Court s t a t e d : " I t is n o t e s s e n t i a l t o maintenance of an a c t i o n f o r m a l i c i o u s p r o s e c u t i o n t h a t t h e p r i o r proceeding was f a v o r a b l y t e r m i n a t e d following t r i a l on t h e m e r i t s . However, t e r m i n a t i o n must r e f l e c t on t h e merits of t h e underlying a c t i o n . . . A d i s m i s s a l f o r f a i l u r e t o p r o s e c u t e . . . d o e s re- f l e c t on t h e m e r i t s of t h e a c t i o n . . . The r e f l e c t i o n a r i s e s from t h a t n a t u r a l a s s u m p t i o n t h a t one d o e s n o t s i m p l y abandon a m e r i t o r i o u s a c t i o n once i n s t i - t u t e d . " (Underscoring added.) W e a g r e e w i t h t h e C a l i f o r n i a Court t h a t a d i s m i s s a l f o r l a c k of speedy t r i a l d o e s r e f l e c t on t h e m e r i t s of t h e c a s e and can be c o n s i d e r e d a s a t e r m i n a t i o n i n f a v o r of Watkins. Probable Cause Probable cause h a s been d e f i n e d a s "a r e a s o n a b l e ground of s u s p i c i o n , supported by c i r c u m s t a n c e s s u f f i c i e n t t o w a r r a n t an o r d i n a r y p r u d e n t man i n b e l i e v i n g t h e p a r t y is g u i l t y of t h e o f f e n s e . I t i n c l u d e s an h o n e s t b e l i e f i n t h e g u i l t of t h e accused, s i n c e t h e r e a s o n a b l e man w i l l n o t p r o s e c u t e a n o t h e r whom he does n o t b e l i e v e t o be g u i l t y . " P r o s s e r , § 119 a t 841. During t h e t r i a l N i l l e r a d m i t t e d t h a t he s o l d t h e Bean's mare and t h e Twig Deck g e l d i n g o u t r i g h t t o Watkins. M i l l e r knew t h a t t h e r e was no b a s i s f o r t h e Fergus County c r i m i n a l complaint r e g a r d i n g t h e Twig D e c k o r f o r one c o u n t of c r i m i n a l a c t i o n 1077 r e g a r d i n g Bean's mare i n M u s s e l s h e l l cou*ty. The o t h e r t h r e e g e l d i n g s which comprise t h e Fergus County c r i m i n a l a c t i o n were s o l d t o Watkins by J a c k i e Oakes. Watkins p a i d J a c k i e Oakes $750 f o r t h e s e t h r e e g e l d i n g s and evidence p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l i n d i c a t e s t h a t M i l l e r knew about t h i s t r a n s a c t i o n . Thus, t h e r e was no b a s i s f o r t h e c r i m i n a l I a c t i o n i n Fergus County. With r e g a r d t o c r i m i n a l a c t i o n 1065 i n M u s s e l s h e l l County, one count concerned Black Deckette, which J a c k i e Oakes t r a d e d t o Watkins, and M i l l e r knew of t h e t r a d e . Another c o u n t i n a c t i o n 1065 concerned t h e Wicked F e l i t a c o l t which Watkins took a s a p a r t i a l d i s t r i b u t i o n of a c o l t c r o p and M i l l e r r e c e i v e d a c o l t from Toi T w i s t o u t of t h e same t r a n s a c t i o n . T h i s d i v i s i o n was made by J a c k i e Oakes. The f i n a l count of c r i m i n a l a c t i o n 1065 concerned M u r r i e t t a Grey. The e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l i n d i c a t e d t h a t Bob M i l l e r knew and approved of t h e t r a d e i n v o l v i n g M u r r i e t t a Grey. From t h e testimony p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l , t h e D i s t r i c t Court was j u s t i f i e d i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t t h e r e was no p r o b a b l e cause f o r M i l l e r t o i n s t i t u t e t h e s e a c t i o n s a g a i n s t Watkins, and f u r t h e r , no h o n e s t b e l i e f by M i l l e r o f t h e g u i l t of Watkins. Maiice a s a P r e r e q u i s i t e The f o u r t h element n e c e s s a r y i n a m a l i c i o u s prosecu- t i o n a c t i o n is m a l i c e o r a primary purpose o t h e r t h a n t h a t of b r i n g i n g an o f f e n d e r t o j u s t i c e . I n t h i s c a s e , t h e r e was a c l e a r l a c k of p r o b a b l e c a u s e f o r c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g s a s p o i n t e d o u t i n t h e p r i o r s e c t i o n . Malice can be i n f e r r e d from want of p r o b a b l e cause. McGuire v. Armitage ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mont. , 6 0 3 P.2d 253, 255, 36 St.Rep. 2142, 2145. I n - - a d d i t i o n , Miller's t e s t i m o n y i n d i c a t e d t h a t he was aware t h a t one h o r s e had been t r a d e d by J a c k i e Oakes, y e t h e t o l d t h e county a t t o r n e y of M u s s e l s h e l l County t h a t t h e h o r s e was s t o l e n , f u l l y e x p e c t i n g Watkins t o be charged w i t h t h e f t . S u f f i c i e n t evidence was p r e s e n t e d t o show m a l i c e and t o conclude t h a t P l i l l e r ' s i n t e n t was n o t t o b r i n g an o f f e n d e r t o j u s t i c e . Was e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d t o s u p p o r t t h e damage awards? The judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r o v i d e s i n p a r t : " T h a t t h e C o u r t f u r t h e r f i n d i n g t h e p l a i n t i f f l i a b l e t o t h e d e f e n d a n t s i n t h e amount o f T w e n t y - t h r e e T h o u s a n d a n d no/100 D o l l a r s ($23,000.00) f o r a c t u a l damages f o r c o n t r a c t o n t w e n t y - t h r e e c o l t s , T h i r t y Thousand and no/100 D o l l a r s ( $ 3 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 ) f o r a c t u a l d a m a g e s a s a r e s u l t o f t h e m a l i c i o u s p r o s e c u t i o n , Twenty-five Thousand and no/100 D o l l a r s ($25,000.00) a c t u a l damages f o r l i b e l and s l a n d e r , and F i f t y Thousand and no/100 D o l l a r s ($50,000.00) p u n i t i v e damages f o r i n t e n t i o n a l u t t e r a n c e s ; and " T h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s h a v i n g i n c u r r e d n e c e s s a r y c o s t s i n t h e p r o s e c u t i o n of t h i s l a w s u i t i n t h e amount of S i x Hundred T w e n t y - s e v e n a n d 1 4 / 1 0 0 D o l l a r s ($627.14); and "That t h e d e f e n d a n t s b e i n g e n t i t l e d t o t e n p e r c e n t ( 1 0 % ) i n t e r e s t p e r annum upon t h e t o t a l amount of t h i s Judgment, s u c h i n t e r e s t t o commence w i t h t h e d a t e o f f i l i n g t h i s J u d g m e n t , a n d g o o d c a u s e a p p e a r i n g . "NOW, THEREFORE, I T I S HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED t h a t Judgment be e n t e r e d f o r t h e d e f e n d a n t s and a g a i n s t t h e p l a i n t i f f f o r t h e sum of One Hundred Twenty-eight Thousand S i x Hundred Twenty- seven and 14/100 D o l l a r s ($128,627.14), a s set f o r t h above, less $1500.00 t h a t D e f e n d a n t s owe P l a i n t i f f , making t h e t o t a l judgment One Hundred Twenty-seven 'rhousand, One Hundred Twenty-seven and 14/100 D o l l a r s ($127,127.14)." S e c t i o n 27-1-303, MCA, p r o v i d e s : "NO p e r s o n c a n r e c o v e r a g r e a t e r amount f o r t h e b r e a c h of a n o b l i g a t i o n t h a n he c o u l d have g a i n e d by f u l l performance t h e r e o f on b o t h s i d e s . . . " F i f t e e n c o l t s were born as a r e s u l t of t h e 1975 b r e e d i n g a s evidenced by t h e B r e e d e r ' s C e r t i f i c a t e s f o r t h a t p a r t i c u l a r y e a r i n t r o d u c e d i n t o e v i d e n c e . F i n d i n g of F a c t No. 22 p r o v i d e d : "That t h e r e was no documentary evidence i n t r o d u c e d i n t o evidence by e i t h e r s i d e a s t o t h e e x a c t number of t h e c o l t s born a s a r e s u l t of t h e 1976 o r t h e 1977 b r e e d i n g . I t was e v i d e n c e d t h a t a ninety-two p e r c e n t ( 9 2 % ) c o l t c r o p would be expected, however, i n l i g h t of poor range c o n d i t i o n s a t t h e M i l l e r ranch, t o g e t h e r w i t h i m p r o p e r c a r e o f t h e animals, an e i g h t y p e r c e n t ( 8 0 % ) c o l t c r o p s h o u l d b e t h e minimum e x p e c t e d . That u t i l i z i n g t h e e i g h t y p e r c e n t ( 8 0 % ) f i g u r e , t h e r e should have been a t o t a l o f e l e v e n (11) c o l t s f o r t h e 1976 b r e e d i n g and a t o t a l of twenty-four ( 2 4 ) c o l t s f o r t h e 1977 breeding. Thus, t h e sum t o t a l o f c o l t s f o r t h e t h r e e - y e a r b r e e d i n g would be i n t h e number of f i f t y ( 5 0 ) , of which each s i d e would be e n t i t l e d t o a t o t a l of twenty-five ( 2 5 ) c o l t s each." The D i s t r i c t Court a l s o found t h a t Watkins had r e c e i v e d two of t h e c o l t s and t h a t t h e f a i r market v a l u e of a c o l t r e g i s t e r e d w i t h t h e AQHA d u r i n g t h e time o f t h e c o n t r a c t was Slp00. W e f i n d t h e award f o r a c t u a l damages on t h e c o n t r a c t t o be p r o p e r . Watkins was awarded $627.14 a s n e c e s s a r y c o s t s i n p r o s e c u t i o n of t h i s l a w s u i t . Watkins was n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y awarded a t t o r n e y f e e s i n e i t h e r h i s d e f e n s e i n t h e c i v i l o r c r i m i n a l a c t i o n s . Watkins submitted a memorandum of h i s c o s t s which provided: l. Clerk of C o u r t , f i l i n g of Motion t o D i s m i s s 2 . Judgment 3 . Deposition 4. S t e n o g r a p h e r ' s Fee 5. Witness f e e s : A. Brad Hamlet 88.00 Two days--$20.00 Mileage from Sun R i v e r , Montana--$68.00 B. Marge Taylor 61.14 Two days--$20.00 Mileage from J o r d a n , Montana--$41.14 TOTAL COSTS AND DISBURSEMENTS $627.14 Section 25-10-201, MCA, provides that a party to whom costs are allowed are entitled to include as costs: "(1) the legal fees of witnesses, includ- ing mileage, or referees and other officers; "(2) the expenses of taking depositions; " (4) the legal fees paid for filing and recording papers and certified copies thereof necessarily used in the action or on the trial;" The costs awarded are allowed under section 25-10-201, MCA, and are proper. Watkins was awarded $30,000 on his counterclaim for malicious prosecution and $25,000 as a result of libelous and defamatory statements. Conclusion of Law 17 awards $55,000 general damages to Watkins for loss of business and damage to reputation. Watkins testified that his business was damaged, that he incurred considerable attorney fees as a result of the criminal proceedings, and that he suffered humiliation and embarrassment as a result of the unfounded criminal prosecutions. Watkins was arrested and required to spend a night in jail. Watkins' son testified as to his father's reputation and questions asked of him by others involved in the horse breeding and trading business after the criminal charges were filed. In Keller v. Safeway Stores, Inc. (1940), 111 Mont. 28, 41, 108 P.2d 605, 612-613, this Court stated that it would rarely revise damage awards for defamation. "Unless the damages are so unconscionable as to impress the court with its injustice and thereby induce the court to believe that the jury was actuated by passion, prejudice or p a r t i a l i t y , it r a r e l y i n t e r f e r e s w i t h t h e v e r d i c t . The q u e s t i o n o f e x c e s s i v e n e s s of t h e v e r d i c t is p r i m a r i l y a d d r e s s e d t o t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e t r i a l c o u r t . " While t h i s is n o t a j u r y case, t h e q u e s t i o n of t h e damage award f o r defamation is a m a t t e r of t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e t r i a l c o u r t . W e do f i n d s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o s u s t a i n t h e c o n c l u s i o n of t h e t r i a l c o u r t and w i l l t h e r e f o r e n o t i n t e r f e r e w i t h t h e d e c i s i o n of t h e lower c o u r t . W a t k i n s was a w a r d e d $ 5 0 , 0 0 0 p u n i t i v e damages f o r i n t e n t i o n a l u t t e r a n c e s . P u n i t i v e o r exemplary damages a r e allowed where the d e f e n d a n t h a s been g u i l t y of o p p r e s s i o n , f r a u d , o r m a l i c e , a c t u a l o r presumed, f o r t h e sake of example and by way of p u n i s h i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t . S e c t i o n 27-1-221, MCA. Exemplary damages s h a l l be used when t h e d e f e n d a n t c l e a r l y shows t h a t he is d e s e r v i n g of such s p e c i a l t r e a t m e n t and punishment. I n Smith v. K r u t a r ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 153 Mont. 325, 457 P.2d 459, t h i s C o u r t i n d i c a t e s t h a t wnere a c t s a r e done w i l l f u l l y and t h e r e s u l t amounts t o f r a u d o r o p p r e s s i o n , p u n i t i v e damages may b e a w a r d e d u n d e r t h e s t a t u t e . B i l l and LaVonne Watkins have been v i c t i m s of f a l s e a c c u s a t i o n s . The maker of t h e s e a c c u s a t i o n s , M i l l e r , knew each and e v e r y one of t h e a c c u s a t i o n s t o be f a l s e a t t h e t i m e he made them. Each and e v e r y one of t h e a l l e g a t i o n s w a s made m a l i c i o u s l y and v i c i o u s l y . Watkins h a s been accused of c r i m i n a l conduct. The a l l e g a t i o n s made are s e r i o u s and d i r e c t l y a f f e c t h i s b u s i n e s s r e p u t a t i o n . These a l l e g a t i o n s were r e p e a t e d over a p e r i o d of t h r e e y e a r s and c o n t i n u e d a t t h e t i m e of t r i a l . The award of p u n i t i v e damages is meant t o make an example and p u n i s h a p e r s o n s o t h a t he w i l l c e a s e t h i s t y p e of conduct i n t h e f u t u r e . W e f i n d t h a t t h e f a c t s of t h i s c a s e a l l o w f o r t h e awarding o f p u n i t i v e damages. W e a f f i r m . J u s i c \ W e concur: 4&4 Chief J u s t i c e