observed, Cisek did not specifically prove any special damages. To support the trial court’s award of general damages, Cisek testified at the hearing that Cyndi Baily, general counsel for Baylor, informed him that government officials and officers of Baylor were calling her office about Morrill’s letters. Baily also informed Cisek that the letters were threatening his career at Baylor, and that Morrill’s conduct was inconsistent with a continued employee/employer relationship between Cisek and Baylor. Cisek testified that he has not been promoted since he began working at Baylor, and that several initiatives he introduced had not moved forward. Cisek’s salary has not increased since he began working at Baylor. Cisek testified that if Baylor had fired him b App.-Waco 1977, writ dism’d) (<HOLDING>). Forum Non Conveniens In her fourth issue,
holding that a 50000 malicious prosecution compensatory damages award deviated materially from what would be reasonable compensation and ordering a new trial on the issue of damages unless plaintiff stipulated to a reduction in the award to 25000 holding that award of 25000 was reasonable holding that award of 50000 was reasonable holding that an attorneys fees award is not appealable until the amount of the award is set holding that in deciding whether the jurys award is inadequate the test is whether reasonable people could not conclude that the  award was reasonable compensation