BISBEE - A judge on Thursday imposed limited sanctions against an attorney who sued and then dropped charges against the wife and brother of rancher Roger Barnett in a civil claim that accused Barnett of threatening a hunting party with an assault-style rifle.

In a written ruling, Superior Court Judge James Conlogue denied a request to award Barnett's wife, Barbara Barnett, her attorney's fees in the case, though he awarded a partial reimbursement to the defendant's brother, Donald Barnett.

Attorney Jesus Romo Vejar had initially named Roger, Barbara and Donald Barnett as defendants in a civil suit he filed on behalf of two Douglas families in late 2004.

But on Oct. 13, a month before the case went to trial, Romo Vejar filed a motion to drop Barbara and Donald Barnett from the suit, saying he had evidence against them but preferred to focus his case against Roger Barnett.

Defense attorneys asked Conlogue to fine Romo Vejar $5,000 for groundless prosecution and to require him to reimburse the two Barnetts for their attorney fees and court costs.

Conlogue agreed to take the request under advisement and issue a ruling after hearing evidence in the trial of Roger Barnett, which ended Nov. 22 when a jury ruled for the plaintiffs and ordered him to pay $98,775 in damages.

In his ruling Thursday, Conlogue wrote that he would have directed a verdict in favor of Donald Barnett had the plaintiffs proceeded to trial against him.

"Donald Barnett committed no (wrongful act)," the judge wrote, "and the evidence did not establish that Donald Barnett was acting in concert with Roger Barnett in the commission of any (wrongful act)."

However, the judge noted that an attorney does not have to demonstrate that a civil claim is winnable at the time that it is filed, only that it is not frivolous. On that basis, he declined to sanction Romo Vejar for groundless prosecution.

Conlogue denied Barbara Barnett's request for sanctions on the grounds the suit alleged Roger Barnett had acted on behalf of his wife. Therefore, the judge wrote, she was a necessary party to the suit.

Reached for comment, Donald Barnett said he had been advised by his attorney, Karl Elledge, not to speak until Elledge had fully read the ruling.

Barbara Barnett's attorney, John Kelliher, was out of his office Thursday and unavailable for comment.

Romo Vejar had not yet received Conlogue's ruling, but was pleased to hear its conclusion. "The judge has been very just and moderate, and we'll abide by whatever he rules," Romo Vejar said. "I think he's been very reasonable and very impartial in everything he has done in this case."

The suit arose from an incident on Oct. 24, 2004, when Roger Barnett confronted a hunting party that he accused of trespassing on his ranch outside Douglas.

During the confrontation, the rancher took out an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle and allegedly threatened to shoot the group, which included Ronald Morales, his father, his two young daughters and their friend.

Testimony during the trial showed that prior to the incident three members of the group had encountered Donald Barnett, who ordered them off the property.

Witnesses from both parties said that while Donald Barnett spoke sternly to the hunters, he did not threaten to harm them or remove the pistol holstered at his side.

Donald Barnett later left the scene before his brother arrived, but the two girls who were present during the encounter alleged he had traumatized them.

The youngest girl, Angelique Morales, who was 9 at the time, testified she became sick and vomited when she thought she saw Donald Barnett at a restaurant some months later.

Barbara Barnett was present when her husband took out his rifle, though both she and Roger Barnett testified she never left the couple's pickup.

Barbara Barnett said she was too afraid of Ronald Morales - who briefly carried a hunting rifle during the exchange - to get out of the truck.

Plaintiffs' testimony, however, alleged Barbara Barnett left the truck with two large ranch dogs and stood next to her husband, looking on coldly.

Roger Barnett is a well-known anti-illegal-immigrant activist who claims to have detained more than 10,000 illegal immigrants in the last 10 years.

He denied threatening the hunting party, testifying he only took out his AR-15 rifle because the adults in the group were carrying rifles.

The Morales party, American citizens of Mexican descent, said Roger Barnett insulted them with racial slurs in addition to threatening to shoot them.

Barnett denied the allegations.

The suit against Roger Barnett alleged assault, false imprisonment, negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The jury found in favor of all five plaintiffs and assessed damages at $210,000, but split responsibility between Roger Barnett, Ronald Morales and his father, Arturo Morales.

The jury also ruled the Morales party had trespassed on Roger Barnett's property, but awarded Barnett no damages.