ALLEGED MALICIOUS PROSECUTION

Evening Star, Issue 17925, 22 March 1922, Page 2

ALLEGED MALICIOUS PROSECUTION

In the Gisborne case of Hugh Paterson v. tho National Piano Company (Auckland), a claim for £3,000 damages for alleged malicious prosecution arising from the'arrest of plaintiff for the alleged theft of a piano, plaintiff, in cross-examination, maintained that ho had an arrangement under which he was entitled to dispose of the piano, accounting to the company for time payments. Henry Matthew Choveaux, a witness for plaintiff, deposed that Lock, manager of the defendant company, had asked him in a letter to remember going to Paterson and delivering a letter to him. All tho suggestions in the letter were new to him. Cross-examined, ho said he replied that ha had vague recollections of a letter sent by Lock marked “Private and confidential,” ami indicated that both belonged to the Masonic fraternity.

His Honor : Is it such a- fraternity as would condemn that sort of thing? Mr M. Myers (for plaintiff): Most certainly.

In answering Mr Johnston© (counsel for the defence), witness said; he would not expect anyone in the fraternity to commit auv crime.

His Honor: Whether tho letter asks him to commit perjury or not, it is important. Mr Johnstone : It is recognised that tho letter was not right, and defendant is prepared to face tho consequences. Mr Myers said the court- had not appreciated' why ho had suppressed a portion of the letter.

His Honor; He had no right whatever to use that as a business letter, further said that bn had written to. Lock and abased the Masonic brotherhood by disparaging the business when witness was in Iris hour of need. Witness had written that ho could not believe it, as it was too despicable to comprehend as an act of a Mason. The letter concluded; “As a Masonic brother I demand your respect and confidence,”