DAMAGES CLAIMED.

Evening Post, Volume LXXXII, Issue 123, 21 November 1911, Page 7

DAMAGES CLAIMED.

J. J. MEIKLE v. WELLINGTON

LOAN COMPANY.

ALLEGED FALSE IMPRISONMENT;

PLAINTIFF NONSUITED.

Allegations of false imprisonment were made in a case before the Chief Justice- (Sir Robert Stout) and & jury of four to-day. The parties wore John James Meikle, of Wellington, settler, plaintiff, and .'the Wellington Loan Company, Ltd., defendant. Mr. E. C. Levvey appeared for the plaintiff and Mv. T. Young for defendant company. STATEMENT OF CLAIM. Plaintiff, in his statement of claim, eet out that on or about 6th July, 1604, he borrowed from defendant company' the sum of £22 4s, giving as security a promissory not© drawn by himself and endorsed by William Thomas Whin* ham in favour of defendant, and payable at defendant's office three months after date. On 3td August, 1904 plaintiff borrowed a further sum or £lo om similar conditions. On 3rd August, 1907, defendant company issued a summons against plaintiff, and Whinham to recover the amotint of the first promissory note, with interest, £4 18s 3d, and of the second note, with interest £1 18s. 4d, making a total of £39 7s, For this the company obtained judgment against Whinham by default. Oh 12th December, 1910, plaintiff paid to the •company the sum of £33 13b, which it accepted in full settlement and satisfaction of the judgment. On 9th February, 1911, plaintiff embarked at Wellington on the Turakina, with the' intention of taking a business trip to England, returning as soon as his business was completed. On that day plaintiff was served with a summons for £ls 1*« lid, being, interest- on promissory note, moneys. Defendant company made an affidavit to the effect tha,t repeated de-i mands had been made for the money, that plaintiff had never disputed hi» liability, but had kept making: promises of payment, which promises had not been fulfilled, and that now plaintiff was about to leave the Dominion with the intention of evading payment. The affidavit, alleged plaintiff, was'f also and untrue in all these particulars to the knowledge of the defendant'company, was made falsely and maliciously, and without reasonable or probable cause, and with, the intention that an order should be made by the Magistrate for plaintiff's arrest and detention. Such an order was made, and plaintiff was arrested and removed- from the Turakina in custody of an officer of tho Magistrate's Court. In order that he might be enabled to proceed on the voyage, and without admitting the legality of the proceedings or his liability to pay all or any of the moneys claimed, plaintiff paid, under protest, the sum of £l6 8s lid, and was released. l Plaintiff alleged that by the- arrest he suffered great pain, annoyance, dagraee, loss of credit and reputation, and was greatly injured in hio character and standing. He claimed the return of the £l6 8s lid j £2OO damages' for false imprisonment, £%'o 'for malicious awest and malicious abuse of process by, defendant company. . . THE DEFENCE! Defendant company denied that th« £33 13s was paid or accepted in full settlement and satisfaction, but wa* on account. The statements contained in the affidavits were true; An affidavit waß made in support of the application for an order for plaintiff's arrest and detection, but denied that any part was false. Defendant company acted without malkti and in bona tide belief that it had a good cause of action against plaintiff. , Defendant also said that this action was not commenced within three month* as required by section 183 of the MagisCourt Act, and that no notice of action was 'given defendant as required by that Act. A QUESTION OF INTEREST. In opening, Mr. Lewey made a refer-, ence to nib client's past history, but His Honour declined to hear anything on this point as it was irrelevant to the action. ,

... Proceeding, Mr. Levvey said that' Meikle borrowed from friends, sympathisers, and from defendant company, among others. If a man borrowed £2O for twelve months, the company charged 20 per cent, but as ib would only; give the applicant £l6,- the rate, was really 25 per cent. His Honour: What has the jury to do with with this? You are not plaiting allegations regarding the interest. Mr. Levvey said it had reference to the question of malice. His Honour: If 100 per cent were charged, it could not affect the question of malice.

Mr. Levvey s I want to ehow how certain amounts were arrived at. "That has nothing to do with' the case," declared His Honour.

Continuing, Mr. Levvey said that in. 1010, Meikle received £2500 from the Government, bub his whole liabilities amounted to £4OOO. H» therefore told the, company's secretary that ho could only pay the principal, and the coats incurred in suing Whinham. The secretary asked what about the interest, Meikle replied that he was not going to pay it, and the company could do what it liked. There was a long discussion* and eventually the* secretary accepted the amount offered in full" settlement. The receipt read : —"Received from J. J. Meikle the sum of £33 13s being amount of two promissory notes and law costei £l9s."

NOT A COMPLETE RECEIPT. In his,evidence, Meikle said hta departure was announced by the news* pa-netti. , His Honour asked why the full settle* ment was not mentioned in the receipt. Meikle said ho took the receipt to o* a clean one. His Honour: You know interest wa» 'due. If the company agreed to w&iv* it, why is it not in the receipt? Meikle: 1 asked for a clean receipt. His Honour: Tim is not a dean ve» ceipt. When you received a letter demanding paying of the interest, why; \ didn't you ask what was meant? Witness: I didn't take any notice of it.

Mr. Young then raised his non»sult point* indicated in the defence. After Mr. Lcvvey had Implied, hi* Honour-said there was nothing to leave to the jiiry. It was clear tKat the debt had not been released. The receipt made no mention of interest which wae still due. ' Ho thought one of the nonsuit' points most important. An application was made for it, writ of avreotf andthe magistrate granted it. That wfl* a judicial decision by him, Tho law waft clear that a judgment could ttot bo attacked by another suit until it had been aside. Therefore, it was dear that plaintiff could not recover and must be non-auited with usual scale costs. Mr. Levvey: Does your Honour hold a* a fact that tft* receipt did not discharge the interest? His Honour replied in the affirmative