Ramsey v. Flowers

• Decision Date: 26 March 1904
• Parties: RAMSEY et al. v. FLOWERS.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 147

80 S.W. 147

RAMSEY et al. v. FLOWERS.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

March 26, 1904.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Cleburne County; Elbridge G. Mitchell, Judge.

Action by R. E. L. Flowers against Frank Ramsey and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Jas. H. Harrod, for appellants. J. V. Roberts and J. C. Clark, for appellee.

BUNN, C. J.

This is a suit for malicious prosecution, instituted by the appellee against appellants on a claim for damages in the sum of $10,000, tried and determined before a jury in the Cleburne circuit court on the 9th day of April, 1901, upon pleadings and evidence, resulting in a verdict for plaintiff for the sum of $500, and defendants filed their motion for new trial, which being overruled they excepted, and appealed to this court.

In their motion for new trial they made 17 several assignments of error, of which, only 6 are insisted on here.

First. They say that it was error to admit the testimony of Flowers to the effect that his damages for injured reputation was $10,000, as stated in his complaint. It appears, however, that the verdict of the jury was for only $500. The said testimony of plaintiff therefore shows that it was not the basis of the verdict of the jury, and that it was not material.

Second. The defendants contend that the letter received by Barnum should not have been admitted in evidence, since it was uncertain whether the same was written by Stewart or Copeland, the former testifying that he did not write it. The person who carried this letter from Stewart or Copeland could not positively testify which of the two gave it to him to be delivered to Barnum. Stewart and Copeland and the other defendants were shown by ample proof to have formed and been in conspiracy to cause the arrest and prosecution for illicit distilling by the United States commissioner, O'Hair, in Little Rock. This charge was also shown to have been made without probable cause, and was dismissed by said commissioner. It therefore made no difference which one of the two wrote the letter. The genuineness of the letter was not called in question, only its authorship.

Third. It is contended that the certified transcript of the proceedings before said United States commissioner cannot be made evidence in the case. The office of a commissioner for United States courts was created by Act Cong. May 28, 1896, 29 Stat. 184, Supp. Rev. St. c. 252, § 19, and in the hearing of causes similar to that against the plaintiff a commissioner is a quasi judicial tribunal; therefore his certified copy of the record he is bound to keep is evidence of the truth of the matter and things therein recited, and need not be otherwise proven. Chin Bak Kan v. United States, 186 U. S. 200, 22 Sup. Ct. 891, 46 L. Ed. 1121; 1 Greenleaf (15th Ed.) §§ 485, 507.

The fourth...