MACDOUGAL V. MCLEAN et al.

Canal Zone for six hundred dollars ($600), United States currency, and costs of suit secured by E. J., MacDougal on October 6, 1908, against D. T. McClean.
The action was originally instituted in the court below by appellee against D. T. McClean and I. L. Maduro for malicious prosecution. The complaint set out the cause of action in nine different paragraphs. Issue being joined, trial was had resulting in a judgment finding I. L. Maduro "not guilty" while D. T. McClean was "found guilty" and judgment was rendered against him asabove stated.
It appears from the evidence that appellee has resided in the Canal Zone about three years That he had twice been in the employ Qf appellants, who were the proprietors of the Gorgona Aerated Water Company; on the first occasion appellee remaining in such employ about nine months. That in January, 1908, he was reengaged as manager of the factory at a salary of $100 gold per month in addition to the use of one free room, and also allowed 10 per cent commission on sales. That such employment was without term. That as manager it devolved upon appellee to pay off hands, take general charge of said business, keep the books, etc. That from time to time appellee paid himself, charging his account in the books of the firm and which books were not only open to but inspected by the appellants whenever they felt so disposed.
From the record it appears everything ran along apparently satisfactorily until in May, when appellants suggested a reduction in the salary of appellee. Statements and letters were exchanged wherein appellants contended salary paid was in excess of what the profits of the business justified, while appellee maintained he could not consistently remain in the employ of appellants at any reduced salary.
On the evening of May 14, 1908; when appellee maintains one month had expired from date first notice of change or reduction in salary had expired, he closed his work, balanced up his accounts, including his own, and paying himself $1,261 Panamanian currency, the amount his account disclosed as due him for salary and commissions, and penning his employers a letter, he suggested his withdrawal from their employ, and calling their attention to the fact that he attached therewith a statement of his personal account wherein he had paid himself the above amount, and that he desired the relation that had heretofore existed as employer and employee to be discontinued. Continuing, the letter stated