Claim for Damages.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XL, Issue 7302, 23 May 1902, Page 3

Claim for Damages.

Alleged Malicious Prosecution. Two claims for £501 each were brought against George Coloy in the Supremo Court yesterday by Hans and Emma Andrieson respectively. Mr Wilford appeared for the claimants and Mr Skorrett for the defendant. The claimants were a Foxton fisherman and Ins wife; the defendant was a ilaxmiller at the s'inie town. The claims were made on the grounrl of malicious prosecution. Counsel for the claimants told the jury thut on the 10th March in this year a man named Bushctl, a friend of the Andriesons, was at their house, and while Bushclt was there a daughter of the defendant Coly came to the house and offored to sell chaff and oats. As a result o£ the offer a bargain was made to deliver to Bushctt live bags of chaff and two of oats. These were delivered by a man named Mason, who was in the employ of Coley, One pound was paid down for the oats ard chaff, and subse quently another Cs. This was paid by Andrieson on behalf of Bushott, ;ind a receipt wa6 given by Coley's daughter. There had been previous dcaliugs between the parties. Subsequently Coley came home and questioned his man Mason as to where certain bags of oats were. Mason told him they hud been delivered to Andrioson, whereupon Coley goi; in a passion and said he would ''put the in gaol." Colev summoned the police, but he evidently changed his mind as to Andneson. for he got Mason put in durance. Mason was there for a night. Coley next—without making any preliminary complaint to tho Andriesons — got a search warrant and searched their premises. Andrieson produced the receipts for £1 63 signed by Coley'a daughter. Co'.ey became further incensed, refused to look at the receipts, and said he " would spend £500 over tho thing.'' Subsequently lie sent bis sons and a policeman to Andriosons' to eotuove tho fodder. After this was dono Ooloy wont to a justice of tho Peace and swore an information that Mr nnd Mrs Andrioson had received tbo goods knowing '.hem to bo stolen. In tbo interval tho case againat Mason came on, but Coloy offered no ovidence. Tho case of theft against Andrieson was withdrawn by Coley but ho offered no expression of regret or apology. Aftor tho caso was withdrawn a sum of 17s wus offered to Andrieson by Coley's solicitor, but the money was declined by Andrieson. The defence of the case was that the surroundings of the transactions were such as to fully justify Coley's action* in tho matter ; also that the case against Andrieson was withdrawn with tho consent of lho aggrieved parties. The witnesses were cross-examined by Mr Skcrrctt with a view to proving that (he corn and chaff were sold by Mrs Coley, through her daughter, against tlie will of Coley, and also tvithout his knowledge Tho price paid by Coley for the oats u-.is 2s lOd per bushel c.i.f., at Foxton, and it was urged by the defence that the price at which tho small quantity was sold to complainonts or Bushett (by the agency of a twelvc-year-otd child) was presumptive evideuco to the purchasers that I the transaction was an unjustifiable one, not to use a harsher term. It was also contended for the defence that (liedoors of the barn in which the oats and chaff were stored had been broken 111 so that the goods could be got out. The Foxton constable (Poster) gave ovidence that when he executed the search warrant at Andrieson's house nothing was said about the chaff having been bought for one Bushett. The constable also deposed that when tho cases against the Andriesons were called on it was slated by one sohci'.or' that ho had arranged with another solicitor (as between the two parties) that the cases should be settled by Coley paying back the sum of lO.s to Andrie.-ou in return for the money lia had paid for the oats and chaff since taken back by Coley (tho balance of the 20s paid being deducted on account o£ two sacks of c-half used before the time of re-possession.) The witness also gave evidence that at the time oE the trouble witness was paying 3s (id per bu.-hel for oats and 5s a bag for oaten chaff. In answer to his Honor, the witness said that Coley told the Justice of the Peace who issued the final cause of the trouble that Mrs Coley was in the habit of making away with Coley's goods. Could not positively swear that Coley said his wife had previously disposed of goods to the Andriesons, but witness believed that Coley told the Justice that also. Witness could not rety upon his memory, even for the substance of what was said by Coley to the Justice ; the events took phec some lime ago, and witness had thought the case was done with forever, and so had not tried to recollect. In answer to Mr Skerrett, the witness said it had been notorious for years in Foxton that Mrs Coley disposed of her husband's goods. Tlie Justice of the Peace who signed the warrant (Mr Jinks) must have known about it. His Honor expressed the opinion that it was a monstrous thing to lay an information against neighbours—under such conditions of affairs—without giving them an opportunity of explaining poss'.ssion. Mr Skeirel said his client might have acted as nn ignorant man, or even as an impot ous umn ; but not a3 a malicious irutn. It wds not open to him undci the law to obargo hia wife with larc-ny and he was anxious to take action Him would put'soue stop to his trouble. MrSkcnrtt, in opening his case, con tended ih.-'.l Culcy had rectified liis mis take at tinl earliest possible dny. Tin complainant, counsel urged, had stijte( lie refused, the sum of lGs 0

17s offered to him on behalf of C'oley) that ho ''had a good goose and'was going lo pluck it '"' There had been no ma!ice displayed by Colry in Ihe t'iisr; his actions had been only illadvised. As a matter of fad Mrs Colry liml denied having sold the things and Uoley thought that the goods had hcon sokl by his mnu TilafOii to the Andries )iis. "Wlipu Coley found out that his wife was concerned iv the matter he tit once took steps to withdraw the case against the Andricsons. Nothing further was heard for some time about, the matter; and then without any preliminary letters a writ was served upon the present defendant. The action was an attempt to magnify a storm in a ioapot; an institution of litigation which was pure speculation. The case stands parity heard and adjourned unlil this morning for the taking of evidence for the defence.— N.Z. Times.