Malicious Prosecution.

Auckland Star, Volume V, Issue 1300, 24 July 1874, Page 2

Malicious Prosecution.

Thursday.— Continued.

(Before His Honor Sir Gh A. Arney, Knight, Chief Justice, and a common jury.)

J. S. MACFARLANE V. HARRIS.

Mr MacCormick addressed the jury for the defence, and urged them to dismiss from their minds all thoughts of plaintiff's position in society and boasted influence with juries. Was he a respectable man ? If so he would state that there had been respectable swindlers and respectable murderers before now. He would ask them to consider the facts before them. He would say, moreover, unhesitatingly that J. S. Macfarlane was a dangerous man— one of the most dangerous men in the community. He would ask them to look at the sham perpetrated in connection with Craig's affairs, also to the fact that Thomas MaofFarlane had bern kept in ignorance of the real state of Craig's affairs. He -sincerely regretted for the sake of society that such diabolical things had occurred at Whangapoa Then there was the sending of "Craig's Troubles" and the letter to the magistrate at Coromandel at the time of Craig's being bound over to keep the peace with the view of influencing the magistrate and subverting the ends of justice. He was glad to say that Mnjor Keddell did jiot rein that pamphlet. Is it possible that plaintiff in this case can doubt the statement of the Craigs when he has confessed that he cannot maintain actions ponding against him without the evidence of these very men whose statements led to the informations being laid at the Police Court by the present defendant. He would fearlessly say that plaintiff was au unscrupulous and a dangerous man who would not hesitate to tamper with justice. He had sworn that he had nothing to do with sending the men down to Whangapoa and inciting them to murder Harris, but it was not likely that Macfarlane would convict himself. The learned counsel then went through the evidence, and shewed that the men were hired and rallied for the avowed purpose of taking possession of the logs, and with violence if they could not be got by other means. The evidence of John Macfarlane proved that he was possessed of a pißtol for the purpose of using force. Mr McCormick then vindicated the conduct of young Harris on seeing two boats approaching him with Europeans and natives in threatening attitude. Had Harris not have confronted them under such questionable circumstance, and shewn something like opposition, he would have been wanting in true courage, and could there be any doubt in the mind of any reasonable man, with a knowledge of the facts, as to who was the instigator of all this. Mr MacCormick then referred to plaintiff's utter disregard of truth and law in relation to the provisional injunction against Craig, of which plaintiff professed to be ignorant of, but of which he must have been cognizant. These were all elements to prove he had reasonable grounds for laying vthe informations.

£'• Mr Hesketh then addressed the jury at length to show that Harris was the aggressor, and that the charges were made upon a false foundation. As to the damages the jury would take into consideration the amount of injury which a merchant in plaintiff's position would bo likely to suffer through the circulation of such charges throughout the world.

His Honor said that he would sum \ up the evidence before the Court to-morrow (Friday) morning.