ZAHN MAYSON, et al., Appellants, v. MOSES BOWEN, Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT, SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, GRAND GEDEH COUNTY. Argued May 14, 1975. Decided June 25, 1975. 1. It is insufficient to merely allege an injury and claim damages therefor ; the plaintiff must prove the injury complained of and prove, as well, that he has been damaged in a sum commensurate with the amount claimed as damages. 2. When there is a blending into one of two or more incompatible causes of actions as though they were cognate actions, the proper course is to demur to the complaint and pray for its dismissal. 3. In order to sustain an action for malicious prosecution, it must be shown not only that there was a lack of probable cause for the prosecution but also that it was instituted maliciously. Appellee instituted an action for slander, assault and battery and malicious prosecution in the Magistrate Court, where he recovered a judgment. The defendants appealed to the Circuit Court where a judgment was awarded to appellee for $5.00 and costs, the judge ruling that appellee had failed to prove the special damages alleged by him. The defendants in the case appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court ruled that appellee had failed to prove any of the special damages alleged and, in addition, had merged different causes of action improperly into one. The judgment was reversed. David G. Balla for appellants. Harper S. Bailey for appellee. MR. JUSTICE AZANGO delivered the opinion of the Court. This case has come before us on an appeal from the Seventh Judicial Circuit Court, Grand Gedeh County. 365 366 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS According to the record certified to us, appellee instituted an action of damages, slander, and assault and battery against appellants in the Magistrate Court for the City of Zwedru. The record reveals that the case was heard in the Magistrate Court and dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to prove his case. Appellee appealed therefrom to the Circuit Court of said County, then presided over by Judge Frederick K. Tulay, who remanded the case to the Magistrate Court for rehearing, because, according to him, the court below had failed to go into the merits of the matter. The mandate from this superior court was obeyed and the case heard, which resulted in an award of $352.00 to the plaintiff, who is the appellee herein, thus eliminating exemplary damages which were earlier prayed for in the amount of $148.00, the magistrate stating in his ruling that he had no trial jurisdiction over exemplary damages. Defendants, who are the appellants herein, appealed to the Seventh Judicial Circuit Court presided over by Judge James M. T. Kandakai. The judge, after having heard the case, awarded plaintiff the amount of $5.00 together with payment of all costs in the proceedings, disallowing $495.00 additional claimed by plaintiff. Significantly, both appellants and appellee excepted to the ruling of Judge Kandakai; that is, appellants excepted to the award of $5.00 and costs and appellee excepted to the elimination of $495.00 claimed as damages. We wish to emphasize that over the years this Court has consistently held that the allegation of a sum as special damages must be substantially proven by unimpeached evidence; and that according to the laws of this country it is not sufficient to merely allege an injury and claim damages therefor, but the plaintiff must prove the injury complained of and that he has been damaged in a sum commensurate with the amount claimed as damages. Itoka v. Noelke, 6 LLR 328 (1939). LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 367 A feature of the case which must not escape us is the fact that there is no showing that appellee ever testified in his own behalf to the allegations contained in his complaint. Appellants contend that the entire action should have been dismissed for incompatibility of causes; that is, having denominated his action as an action of damages for injury to the person, yet in appellee’s complaint he claims damages for malicious prosecution, damages for slander, and injury to the person. Where there is a blending into one of two incompatible causes of action as though they were cognate actions, the proper course is to demur to the camplaint and pray for dismissal of the complaint on the ground of duplicity. Henrichsen v. Moore, [1939] LRSC 4; 6 LLR 351 (1939). In order to sustain an action for malicious prosecution, it must be shown not only that there was a lack of probable cause for the prosecution, but also that it was instigated maliciously. Ross v. Arrivets, 7 LLR 8o (194o). We have found no case where it is held that a citizen who, in good faith, makes a fair statement of the facts as known to him to a prosecuting officer, will be held responsible in damages for the prosecution inaugurated by such officer. In the instant case appellants were used as witnesses for the Republic of Liberia in prosecution for the crime of grand larceny, in which they were required to testify. This was a duty imposed upon them by law. In view of the foregoing, the judgment herein is hereby reversed, with costs against appellee. It is so ordered. Reversed.