
    Toro, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Fajardo et al., Defendants and Respondents.
    Appeal from the District Court of Mayagfiez in an Action, for Damages for Conspiracy.
    No. 1157.
    Decided July 9, 1914.
    Municipal Employee — Removal on Charges — Damages — Conspiracy. — The* plaintiff claims damages on the ground that he was removed from Ms position of secretary of the municipality of Hormigueros on charges made against him by the conspiracy of some of the defendants and other members of the-municipal council, but does not allege that the charges were false. Seldr That the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and that the mere fact of charges having been brought against him and of his having been removed from his position does not constitute conspiracy.
    The facts are stated iu the opinion.
    The appellant filed a brief pro se.
    
    •The respondents did not appear.
   Me. Justice Wole

delivered the opinion of the court.

The complaint in this case sets up that the complainant ■was secretary of the Municipal Council of Hormigueros and faithfully fulfilled all his duties; that two of the defendants "being desirous of putting an employee of their own as secretary in substitution of the complainant, maliciously preferred charges against the complainant charging him with improper conduct in office; and that by reason of such charges the defendant had an illegal trial and was subsequently removed, causing him damages. There were other minor allegations in the complaint but we have recited the gist of the same. The defendants demurred and the court below sustained the demurrer.

There is no averment in the complaint that the charges were not true. The conspiracy between two of the defendants and the other defendants is hinted at rather than set out, the other defendants being members of the council of Hormigueros. The complainant seems to proceed on the theory that the mere filing of charges against him by which he was discharged constitutes a conspiracy. Such is not the law and the judgment must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Chief Justice Hernandez and Justices del Toro and Aldrey concurred.

Mr. Justice Hutchison took no part in the decision of this ■ease. 1  