ALLEGED MALICIOUS PROSECUTION.

Auckland Star, Volume XLI, Issue 284, 30 November 1910, Page 6

ALLEGED MALICIOUS PROSECUTION.

MAHONY V. GREENHEAD. y A claim for £200 damages, for alleged malioious prosecution, was commenced at the Supreme Court this morning before Mr. Justice Cooper. The plaintiff was Edmund Mahony, solicitor, represented by Mr. T. Cotter, and the defendant Charles Henry Greenhead, farmer, of Waiuku, represented by Mr. R. A. Singer. The particulars surrounding the case were of a complicated nature, extending over a number of years. After outlining them Mr. Cotter gave a resume of the case. He said that years ago there was a. Mr. Arrowsmith, now deceased, a wealthy farmer of Waiuku, who gave money out on mortgage. Defendant received money on mortgage on a farm, and the mortgage was transferred to W. J. Hill, Mr. Arrowsmith's solicitor. Mr. Mahony was then partnered with Mr. Hill. There wae difficulty in receiving interest from Mr Greenhead, and Mr Arrow-. smith had the property put up for sale, and took proceedings to eject Greenhead. Greenhead then arranged with Mr. Hill to lease the land, with a compulsory purchasing clause, and also assigned kis interest in an A-M.P. life policy then held by him. These two documents mostly concerned the case. On Mr. Hill's decease Mr. Mahony waa acting as solicitor for the executors, and when the AJI.P. policy came due application was made for payment of the amount (£294 16/). Mr. Greenhead issued a summons to stop the payment, but subsequently Mr, Mahony received the money, less £5 5/. Action for specific performance of the agreement to purchase was taken against Greenhead, and this money was held as half the purchase money. In 1905 an order was made, and the purchase was completed, in accordance with the agreement. The insurance money was then paid by Mr. Mahony to the executor of the Arrowsmith estate, Mr. Griffiths. Mr. Greenhead then got the idea that Mr. MJihony had not paid over the money to the estate. Subsequently a detective was instructed from Wellington to investigate, the case, and his report was that the charges were without foundation. Mr. Greenhead was also of opinion that forgery had been committed in connection with the documents, and apparently made representations to Parliament, so that Jlr. H. W. Brabant, retired magistrate, was instructed to inquire into the case, and after an exhaustive inquiry his report showed the charges were absolutely without foundation. Mr. Griffiths, the executor, made statements acknowledging the receipt of the amount received from the insurance. The next stftp , was that on 29th January, 1909, when Greenhead wrote to the treasurer of the Women's Home Fund, who were entitled to a part of the money in the Arrowsmith estate, stating that in his opinion there were certain irregularities in the Arrow smith estate, and he had obtained indisputable proof that largo sums of money had been obtained by Mr. Mahony, and had not been accounted for. Mr. Greenhead wan (riven an opportunity to go before the Board managing the Women'e Home Fimd, and after the matter was investigated, Mr. Greenhead was assured there was no ground for the complaint. Notwithstanding, Mr. Greenhead laid charges against Mr. Mahony. practically charging him with embezzlement of the money, and with regard to the allegations of forgery, practically charging him with producing documents knowing they were forgeries. The plaintiff was the principal witness for Jiis claim, and he gave evidence thai he did, and had always, looked on mc signatures to the document regarding the purchasing of the land at Waiuku, and the arrangement for assigning the insurance money, as genuine. He traver-' sed all the particulars of the different transactions, and said that throughout he had only acted as solicitor for the executor of the estate. He paid the money received from Grcenhead's insurance policy to Mr. Griffiths, in July 11)05, and there waa nothing to stop Mr. Greeahead going to Mr. Griffiths and being assured that the money had been paid. When the changes laid a-yianst witness came on 'before Mr. Cutten, S-M., in July oi this year, Mr. Greenhead, who then conducted his own case, had the opportunity oi calling Mr. Griffiths, but he did not do so. The magistrate dismissed both chargee without hearing any statement from witness, who could think of nothing but vindictiveness that could bare caused the charges to "be laid. Mr. Singer cross-examined on tiis point to show that Mr. Greenhead would not 'have gone to the lengths he had, had be not been firmly impressed in his mind that something <was wrong. His Honor quite understood that the defendant evidently had this impression, but it was for tois Honor to decide as to whether there was any ground for this. To iMr. Cotter witness said that had the documents 'been misdated it could not have prejudiced defendant, but he was absolutely satisfied that the documents could nof, have been signed on the wrong date.