DISTRICT_COURT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XXX, Issue 89, 16 April 1896, Page 2

DISTRICT_COURT.

(Before District Judge Robinson.) Wednesday, April 15, ALLEGED MALICIOUS PROSECUTION The hearing of tbe case of Riohard Robinpon v. Martin Christian, olaim £200 for alleged malioiousproseoution, was continued yesterday after we went to press. For tbe defence Mr Pitt called Martin ( hristian, the defendant, who remembered the plaintiff coming to his (witness') place of business. Plaintiff, with his mate, McCaghey, and Hannigan, were present on the ocoasion. Witness let plaintiff have a cart and harness for one week only for 10s. Robinson said they would be back within tbe week, or witness would not let him have the cart. They did not return within the week, and up to the time of laying tbe information witness had not received any communication from plaintiff. Witness did not know the plaintiff, and when he laid tbe information be honestly believed that he would not see his property again. On receipt of the letter from Robinson witness banded it to Constable Phair and told him to uso his own judgment about aoting on tbe warrant. The cart was valued at £15 and the harness at i'S. Cross-examined: Witness said he did not believe a word of plaintiff's letter. F. N. Jones gave evidence as to Robinson having a horse from him. When hiring the horse Robinson told witness that he bad paid Christian 10s in advance for the hire of a cart and harness. Counsel having addressed the jury, the Judge summed up, pointing out that there had been a conflict of evidence upon a very vital and important point concerning the real time for the hiring of the cart and harness. Christian set up in his defence as a fact that be had a bargain with tbe plaintiff by which tho plaintiff hired his cart and harness for a period not exceeding one week at 10s to go to Wakefield. That really was the main point upon which the defendant j relied to show that he had reasonable and probable oause for laying tho information, believing his property to have been stolen. His Honor then directed tho jury upon what constituted a justifiable suspicior, pointing out that if a person knew as a fact that his property had been stolen, then he should lay an inf>rm*Hion for actual stealing. Where, however, the property had been trusted to the person against whom the information was laid, then came the question whether the informant had reasonable ground for tbe suspicion that (the trust being changed) the poison had become a thief. It was for the jury to say whether tho defendant hail real suspicion in his mind or whethei as he said he only wanted to get his property back. It ho only wanted to get his property back that would be quite a different motive from the belief that bis property was stolen and that he wanted the thief to be punished. The jury would also have to consider whether there was in the mind of the defendant' a bona fide suspicion amounting to such a reasonable and strong suspicion as should justify a sensible and prudent man running the tiskof laying an information. Again, the jury would have to say whether the bargain in their opinion wus fur a week and to go to Wakelield, or for an indefinite period at 10s per week. It they thought that Hie baigain was for an indefinite period at 10s a week then they would bo able to say that there was evidence that tho defendant had insufficient ground for lnying the information. His Honor put the following issues to the jury : — Whether the bargain was for the letting of tho cart for the limited period of ono week And for the limited distance to Wakefield and back, or for an indefinite period for a ceneral tour. Whether, the defendant having received the letter from plaiutiff after he had laid the information, had acted as a reasonable and prudent man, or whether he was negligent in not making further inqunes while there was time to stay proceedings ? Had the defendant fit any time before the actual trial become convinced that there had not been any felonious intent? Whether the defendant had or had not at the time he laid the information a real suspicion that his property was being stolen ? The jury retired at 25 minutes to six, and returned at seven o'clock, finding as follows :— The hire of the cart was for one week only ; that defendant had reasonable cause for issuing a warrant; that defendant showed neglect in not stopping the prosecution after receipt of the letter from p'aintifF; and £10 was awarded as damages. The Jury, iv reply to his Honor's question "Did they find that there was malice?" said that malice was inferred from defendant's negligence to stay proceedings. His Honor said that upon the finding of tho Jury he ruled that defendant had reasonable and probable causo for laying tho information, but the jury wore properly entitled to find that there was malieo at a later stage if such was their opinion. Tho verdict was for plaintiff, and he accordingly gave judgment for him for £10 damages with £8 16s costs.