NONSUIT WANTED

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 111, 10 May 1917, Page 2

NONSUIT WANTED

A MASTERTON CASE

ALLEGED MALICIOUS PERSECUTION. -

A case which has created considerable interest throughout the Wairarapa, was before the i'ull Court in Wellington to-day, in tha form of a motion for a nonsuit in the. action brought by Thomas Jones, motor salesman, of Masterton, against David William Foreman, farmer, of Miki Miki, near Jlastei'ton. The Bench was occupied by their Honours the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), Mr. Justice Edwards, and Mr. Justice Chapman. Mr. A. Gray, K.G., with him Mr. 1T../ C. Robinson, of Masterton, appeared for Foreman, and Mr. T. M. Wilford, with him Messrs. P. Levi and P. J. Rollings (Masterton) for Jones. Mr. Gvay, in. opening, stated that some time ago Foreman was accused of being the' father of a child bom in his house to his housekeeper. Ho denied the allegation, and, as the result of enquiries, came to the conclusion that Jones was the father. Ultimately, on his own responsibility, Foreman laid a, oomphjinte against Jon.es under the Destitute Persons . Act, alleging that Jones was. the father, and had faijed, or intended to fail, to properly provide for its maintenance. Such a complaint was usually made by a mother, but Foreman, who had heard of the allegations against himself, made it in order to clear his own name and for tho sake of his family, all of whom were grown up. At the same time the mother made a complaint against Foreman, and the latter, being quite satisfied that the question at issue would be finally decided at the hearing of the case, withdrew his complaint against Jones. The Magistrate decided that Foreman was the father of tho child,, against which decision, by the way, an appeal was pending. Jones thereupon proceeded against Foreman claiming £42 special damages and. £2000 general damages for malicious prosecution. This case was heard before Mr. Justice Chapman and a jury, and the verdict was in favour of Jones for £21 and £750 respectively.

Counsel moved for a nonsuit on four points. Two points were disallowed by his Honour, and the remaining grounds reserved for the Full Court: They were : (a) That the amended statement of claim discloses no cause of action; (b) that there is no evidence of damage requisite to maintain the action. In the- alternative, counsel moved for judgment for defendant ' upon the above-mentioned grounds, or, in the further alternative

that the verdict- for plaintiff be set aside and a new trial granted on the grounds; (c) that the verdict is against the weight of evidence; and (d) that the damages are excessive.

Argument is proceeding.