ALLEGED MALICIOUS PROSECUTION.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XL, Issue 7091, 27 August 1901, Page 3

ALLEGED MALICIOUS PROSECUTION.

THE SEARL'S HOTEL CASE.

The case brought by Miss Mary Edith L. McGregor, barmaid, against Mr Edwin John Searl, proprietor of Searl's "Hotel, an action for £501 damages for alleged malicious prosecution, was heard at the Wellington Supreme Court yesterday, before. his Honor Mr Justice Edwards and a jury, of which Mr H. J. Williams was chosen-foreman.

Mr T. M. Wilford appeared for. plaintiff, and Mr T. W. Hislop and Mr C. A, Pownall for the defendant. .

■ On the. application of Mr Wilford,.the ease was heard with a jury of four.- - The plaintiff's statement of claim showed that slie was employed as barmaid at Searl's Hotel, and that between the Ist. and the 10th September, the defendant-alleged that a certain sum of money, £6 is, had been stolen from the bar, and..-on, the 10th September, falsely-and,-maliciously charged the plaintiff -with' having stolen it. He then caused the plaintiff to be arrested'and imprisoned oh the charge, upon which she was committed for trial. The indictment, presented, to the. Snpreme Court charged her with having stolon moneys on the ■ 31st .August, and on the 3rd -6th and 10th September., Defendant was acquitted in the. Supreme Court and howj claimed damages.. The statement of defence denied the allegation that defendant complained: that £6'lsPor any oilier sum had been, stolen from, the bar between the dates mentioned. He admitted haying made the charge against.plaintiff,'but'says he did not do so falsely, and maliciously, and the other proceedings were, taken by the .Crown solicitor in the "-ordinary; way. , Defendant "denied that Tie prosecuted the plaintiff, and. held that there was reasonable ■ground for such prosecution, ' ' ;.'.:•-. r

; After the addresses of counsel, his Honor reviewed' the evidence, .and'speaking of the employment, of a spy, said that-it. ought ~to bo .-remembered that Mr- Searl had had two other barmaids in his hotel and was justified in employing a spy, pot only to detect the thief, butto clear the ! character of the innocent persons; v;HisHonor .submitted the following issues to the.jury:—' 1 ; ,':. .'.,\ ; . .-■ •■ • 1. Did the defendant take reasonable care to inform himself of the true facts of the case? ■ ■ : ■ ' '2. Did the.defendant hohestljrbelieve the case which he laid before -the Stipendiary Magistrate?.' 7 : : :•■'.." 3. "Was the defendant actuated by any indirect motive hi preferring the charges ? After ten minutes' absence, the fury returned a verdiot givingtheirreplies — 1. Yes. 2. Yes. 3. No. ■; ■ . Mr Wilford applied that judgment should be postponed till the following morning, so that he might consider the issues.. .' .'. .: . ' ■ MrHislop objected to the postponement, and on Mr Wilford again appealing, the Judge pointed out that he wcmld have the opportunity of moving in 'the matter if he thought proper. Judgment was . accordingly entered for the defendant, with" costs according to scale. "•"...". \ ... :'■