Pyles v. Armstrong
| Decision Date | 15 March 1929 |
| Docket Number | 6366. |
| Citation | 275 P. 753,84 Mont. 338 |
| Parties | PYLES v. ARMSTRONG et al. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied April 3, 1929.
Appeal from District Court, Carter County; S.D. McKinnon, Judge.
Action by Craige J. Pyles against Melvin, sometimes known as Mel. Armstrong, Jim A. Keith, and others. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded for new trial as to defendants named.
George W. Farr, of Miles City, for appellant.
Wellington D. Rankin, of Helena, and C.J. Dousman, of Baker, for respondents.
Plaintiff alleged that the defendants and other evilly disposed persons, names unknown, commencing about the 13th of July 1924, and continuing thereafter for a considerable period of time, contriving and maliciously intending to hurt, wound and injure the plaintiff and to beat, bruise, wound, and maltreat him, and to unjustly vex, molest, and disturb him and to cause him to be arrested and confined in the county jail and to suffer punishment and to be imprisoned for a long space of time and thus deprived of his liberty, and thereby to impoverish, oppress, and wholly ruin him, did maliciously and wickedly conspire, combine, and confederate and agree together amongst themselves and with divers other evilly disposed persons, names unknown, to carry their aforementioned designs into effect; and that defendants, on the 14th of July, in pursuance of the conspiracy, willfully, wrongfully, falsely, and maliciously, without reasonable probable cause therefor, caused the plaintiff to be charged before a justice of the peace with having committed a felony, and afterwards caused the plaintiff to be charged in the district court with having committed the same crime with which plaintiff was charged in the justice's court, and caused plaintiff to be arrested and imprisoned in the county jail of Carter county, and, while he was in jail, the defendants, further, in pursuance of the conspiracy, wrongfully and unlawfully sought to prevent him from obtaining sureties on a bail bond, in order that he might obtain his release from jail, and, after he had obtained sureties on a bail bond, the defendants, further, in pursuance of the conspiracy, endeavored to persuade and did persuade some of the sureties on the bail bond to withdraw therefrom, causing the plaintiff to be wrongfully and unlawfully confined and imprisoned in the jail; that he was unable to procure sureties by reason of the wrongful and unlawful acts of the defendants in persuading and preventing persons from going on or becoming sureties on the bail bond, and who otherwise would have become sureties thereon except for the influence and persuasion of the defendants-by reason of all of which the plaintiff was confined in the county jail for a period of 38 days; that the prosecution and charges against the plaintiff have been dismissed and the prosecution wholly terminated, and that by reason of the acts and conduct of the defendants plaintiff was damaged, etc.
Demurrers to the complaint having been overruled, the defendants answered by general denial. On November 7, 1927, the cause came on for trial before the court sitting with a jury, and, upon conclusion of the plaintiff's testimony, the court sustained a motion for nonsuit and entered judgment thereon. Plaintiff's motion for a new trial having been denied, he appealed to this court.
The plaintiff, a man 26 years of age, in 1924 was living near Chalk Buttes, in Carter county, Montana. He had lived there since 1910. One Laird, his brother-in-law, had been informed against for the crime of rape committed upon the daughter of the defendant Melvin Armstrong, had given bail, and on the 13th of July was a fugitive from justice. Mr. Armstrong, incensed over the outrage, and thinking the authorities remiss in their duty, appealed to his neighbors, who agreed to meet at defendant Jim Keith's with the view of taking some action in the matter. On the evening of July 13, thirty or more men assembled at Keith's. A number of them were armed. There was some violent talk, and it was suggested that they go directly to plaintiff's, the idea being to compel him to disclose the whereabouts of Laird, for they thought plaintiff had taken Laird out of the country.
In the meantime, the sheriff got wind of the matter, and, upon the advice of the county attorney, warned the plaintiff, advising him to go elsewhere. This plaintiff refused to do, saying that he proposed to stay at his home and to protect himself. For some reason or other the party did not enter the premises of plaintiff, but proceeded to Ekalaka, the county seat, where they arrived at 3 o'clock in the morning. Mr. Armstrong woke up Mr. Sheldon, the county attorney, telling him that there were some men down town who wanted to see him on important business. The county attorney went to his office. Upon arriving there, he found "a great number of cars out in Main street" and men "scattered all around about the cars and on the street." The men filled his office and began to talk, four or five talking at once. They wanted action. Some demanded the enforcement of the law. Some abused the county attorney for letting Laird get away. Some abused him for other reasons. Some said they had intended to tar and feather the plaintiff, and others The main purpose of the gathering originally, as the county attorney understood it, was that the crowd intended to make the plaintiff tell where Laird was. They then demanded that plaintiff be arrested for taking Laird out of the state. As to that nobody dissented, except the county attorney, who said he did not know of any statute under which the plaintiff could be arrested. But several of the men insisted there was; there must be. The parley continued until breakfast time; after breakfast it was resumed. Finally, the county attorney, after discussing the matter thoroughly, and having the benefit of counsel representing Armstrong and his friends, concluded to accuse the plaintiff as an accessory after the fact. Thereupon a complaint was filed with a justice of the peace, upon which a warrant was issued and the plaintiff arrested. There was no preliminary examination, but on July 19 an information charging plaintiff with being an accessory after the fact was filed by leave of court; the district judge fixing bail at $2,000. The proceeding before the justice of the peace was then dismissed. Upon bail being fixed, plaintiff employed Mr. Wheeler, an attorney at law, to procure a bond, which was done. The bond was in the penal sum of $2,000, signed by seven persons, each of whom qualified to being worth the sum of $1,500 over and above all his just debts and liabilities, exclusive of property exempt from execution. The bond was sufficient on its face. Shortly after the bond was signed, the defendant Armstrong, sometimes accompanied by one man and sometimes by another, visited the bondsmen and induced all of them to withdraw. Their procedure was as follows:
Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Mankin interviewed Mr. Nelson, one of the bondsmen. They told him that most of the rest of the bondsmen had withdrawn; said to him that, if the plaintiff ever got out on bond he would leave the country and Nelson would have the bond to pay. He thereupon signed a written withdrawal from the bond. "In a way," Nelson testified,
Armstrong and Mankin interviewed Haney. They told him he was the last one remaining upon the bond. They said to Haney that, if they could detain plaintiff in jail, he would not be able to keep Laird posted, but, if he were out, he would keep him posted, and that, if released, plaintiff would run away too. So Haney withdrew, but soon regretted his action.
Armstrong and the defendant Jim Keith interviewed bondsmen Van Ransler and Mr. George Woodward, whose wife had signed the bond. They told these gentlemen that all of the rest of the bondsmen had "signed off" and they had another charge against the plaintiff. Van Ransler asked Armstrong why they were holding plaintiff and why they did not let him get out and harvest his crop. Armstrong said he wanted to keep plaintiff inside so that he would not correspond with Laird.
Prior to that, Armstrong and Keith had told Mrs. Woodward that she and Van Ransler were the only ones who had not withdrawn from the bond. She signed a written withdrawal, sealed it in a letter, gave it to Mr. Keith for delivery to Mr. Woodward, saying if Mr. Woodward decided that she should withdraw she would do so. Mr. Woodward consented to the withdrawal of his wife.
Armstrong and Mr. Lantis called upon Emory Stern, a bondsman, who testified that Armstrong told him "that they had all signed off and the bond was a bad one, and I had better come off it."...
To continue reading
Request your trial