MONEY LENDER AND SOLDIER.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLI, Issue 10526, 2 December 1916, Page 2

MONEY LENDER AND SOLDIER.

(Pi:n Pkkss Association.) WELLINGTON, Dec. 1. At the Stipromo Court Mr Justice Iloking '.vaa encaged to-day in hearing a fuse wherein Charles Henry .Rice, a soldier on active service, whose evidence had been taken on commission, sued Lazarus Wolfe Balkind for £ MO damages for al 1 yeti malicious prose ution. Mr Neavo, for plaintiff, said that the suit arose out of defendant's action in proecuting plaint iff in the Magistrate's Court, Wellington, on a charge of obtaining mouej by false pretences. Plaintiff contended that defendant'* motive for thai prosceul ■ • was to extort money for one loan. Pi-iii! ill' was acquitted. Defendant was a money lender, :■■ .■' plaintiff nnfor tnnau'lv liad occasion ".- approach him for financial assistance i:i July, 1015. Plaintiff borrowed £3O, guim; a bill of sale on his furniture Though tin loan was for only £3O, the document pun orted to secure tho repayment of a stun of £4O. Interest to rhc amount of £lO was paid, then plain tiff under pressure gave a promissory note for £SO, payable on demand. The bill not being redeemed, defendant's bi iliff called at plaintiff's house, when Miss li ce stated that the furniture w.n; hers, and that led to a prosecution in the lower court, though no demand was made on plaintiff or explanation, sought from him. Sir John Find lay asked for a nonsuit on , tho ground that no proof of malice had ii been shown. Decision was reserved on this point. Sir John Findlay, addressing the jury, pointed out lh.it if a man had at honest belief in tho facts presented to hin Ho was justified in prosecuting, i.'luintil had not proved altogether a "clean p" '.ato. ;i He was a gambler and. addieic to intemperance, and his wife once lt;u to sue him under the Destitute LVr.ou; Act. Defendant was a money lender therefore he was not the most popula man in tho community, but he served i useful purpose, Balkincl believed that tin furniture belonged to plaintiff. These, \va no doubt that, he had been mislead. Plain tiff only paid £lO, so defendant, was on of pocefct, and had done nothing unreason able. The jury disagreed, and the etise wa -;et down for reJiearinpr.