SUPREME COURT OF THE CANAL ZONE.

that appellee would remain at the California Hotel in Gorgona for a period of ten days, where appellants could address him if they desired any information concerning the business or the discontinuing of said relations.
From the evidence it appears that after having written the above letter appellee delivered the same in person and read it to appellant, McClean. On receipt of such letter and after having heard it read McClean said "So you have paid yourself?" to which answer was made "Yes, as usual." Then McClean replied "This is a matter for the courts to decide." On the following morning, May 15, at seven o'clock, appellee received a letter from appellant McClean as follows: GORGONA, 15 May, 1908.
Mr. MacDougal. I beg to say your conduct has not proved you to be what I always thought you were. You have provel yourself a rogue.
I now beg to inform you that if monies are not returned to safe by 11 a. m., I shall issue a warrant for your apprehension and have you tried.
You can take what steps you like after.
Your obd. servt.,
(Sgd.) D. T. McLEAN.
On the same day McLean filed a complaint with the judge of the District Court of Gorgona, Canal Zone, charging appellee with unlawfullyy, wilfully, and fraudulently appropriating to his own use the sum of $600 gold," the property of the Gorgona Aerated. Water Company, a copartnership consisting of D. T. McLean and I. L. Maduro. Warrant was immediately issued on said complaint and appellee apprehended and taken to the police station where he remained for one hour and a half before being conducted to the municipal court, where he gave bond in the sum of $1,000 United States currency for his "appearance on the 20th day of May, 1908.
On this latter date the testimony of appellants was taken, the crime ot embezzlement charged against appellee, and by action of the district judge appellee was held to appear in the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of the Canal Zone.
At a regular session of the latter court on July 14, 1908, appellee was discharged and the suit against him dismissed.
On July 21, 1908, the proceeding in question was instituted for malicious prosectuion, from which trial was had and disposition made as hereinbefore stated.
From appellants bill of exceptions three errors are assigned on which appeal to this court is prosecuted, namely, (1) because the evidence is insufficient to justify the judgment. (2) because

8