UNKNOWN

Press, Volume XXXIX, Issue 5562, 17 July 1883, Page 3

UNKNOWN

MOSBAT, JTJI.-X- Iβ [Before His Honor Mr Justice JoknSTOn.J The sittings -were resumed at 11 a.m. POSTPONEMENTS. The following cases were postponed till ATignatwitfcin^viz.:—Strrre v Union SteamShip Co., Parkinson v G-oodwin, Creditors' Trustee of Pope v Pope and another.

TTTT.T. V I.EONAJID In this case John Hill was plaintiff and Alfred Leonard defendant. The plaintiff sought to recover from the defendant the sum of £250 as damages for false and malicious prosecution. The case for the plaintiff -was that the defendant laid an information against the plaintiff for larceny of a horse and cart, and a warrant was issued, under which the plaintiff was arrested and appeared before the Resident Magistrate. When the case was called on the defendant as prosecutor asked leave to withdraw it. It appeared that the plaintiff was indebted to Wilkin and Co. in the sum of i>32, for which they summoned him. Being unable to pay, the plaintiff gave a bill of sale ever hie horse and cart and other effects for £52 3s 9d. The goods comprised in the bill of sale were afterwards removed from the premises of plaintiff in Papanui road to Innes' road, and subsequently the horse was used by the plaintiff for the purpose of hawking round the country. The defendant, then acting for Messrs Wilkin and Co., issued a warrant against the plaintiff. The plaintiff on being arrested was placed in the ceil at the depot, and afterwards remanded to Addington Gaol. Whilst in Addington Gaol the defendant and Mr Stringer saw plaintiff, and asked him if he could produce the things mentioned in the bill of sale if he obtained bail, and he stated that ail the things were on the premises. Plaintiff was afterwards released on his own bail, and the articles mentioned in the bill of sale were found on his premises at Innes , road, except the horse, which he understood he had power to remove. The defence was that the bill of sale given by plaintiff to Wilkin and Co. contained a declaration that the plaintiff should not remove or lend any of the property from off the premises in Victone street, without the consent of Robert WiiMn and Co. That some days before the issue of the warrant the defendant, acting on instructions from Wilkin and Co., went to the premises of the plaintiff in Victoria street and found the shop closed and the goods removed. That search was made for plaintiff and the goods, but ineffectually. That the defendant had reasonable and probable cause for believing, under these circumstances, that the plaintiff had committed larceny. That the charge against the plaintiff was not made by the defendant until consultation with counsel, and laying the whole facts before him, and that he acted bone fide upon the opinions and advice of such counsel. Mr J. B. Fisher appeared for plaintiff, Mr Stringer for defendant. Mr Fisher called evidence in support of his case to prove that the defendant had no reasonable or probable cause for the arrest of plaintiff. At the conclusion of the case for plaintiff His Honor said that if the defendant could show that the whole facts had been laid before counsel, and that he advised that there were reasonable grounds for believing that an information wouldlie, he would be a jußtified in his action. Mr Stringer opened the case for the defence, and called the defendant, Messrs F C Tabart, J. Wflk.n, J. Shackleton. He then addressed the Court, submitting that the defendant vraa justified m acting as he did, having taken the advice of counsel. [Case cited in support: McLeod v Beeves, ST.Z. Jurist.] He also submitted that there must be express malice proved to remove the action out of the ran« of reasonable or probaLle cause. [Case cited: Hicks v Faulkner, 51 L.J., Q. 8., 268.] Mr Fisher, for the plaintiff, eubmitted that the whole of the facto were not before

the solicitor when his advice wae given to be defendant, and that sufficient inquiry had not been made to discover the whereabouts of the plaintiff or of the goods. His Honor said the judgment of the Court must be for the defendant, as the advance made by Wilkin and Co. was on the strength of the continuance of the business by the plaintiff. This was the reasonable conclusion to be arrived at. The bailiffs had been paid out by Messrs Wil? kin and Co. for the purpose of enabling the plaintiff on the premises to carry on the business of a butcher and for no other. The plaintiff must have known from the tenor of the bill of sale that he Was bound to keep the property on the premises unless with the permission of Messrs Wilkin and Co. As to the conduct

M the defendant he thought he had reasonable and probable cause for believing that the plaintiff had taken away the goods for the purpoee o? disposing of them. He had, therefore, on the evidence come to the conclusion that Mr Leonard had acted bona fide on the information as to the action of the plaintiff. Judgment would therefore be for defendant, with costs £30 7s. The Court then rose.