MALICE ALLEGED

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 23100, 27 July 1938, Page 20

MALICE ALLEGED

CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS NO GROUND FOR CHARGE JURY AWARDS DAMAGES [_ BY TFI.KC It A I'll OWN (illlllKSroN DKNI] PALM KRSTt >X XOHTII, Tuesday A case of an unusual nature came before the Supreme Court, when, alleging that criminal proceedings had been set iu motion against him maliciously, Alfred Little, pressor, of I'alnierst on North, sought L'-oO damages from Spero Andrews, fish merchant, of I'alinerston North, ami his sister. Inula Andrews, I he statement of claim set out that in September last plaintiff was tried in the Siipromt l Court, charged that, being the servant of a drv cleaning firm, ho fraudulently omitted to account for a cheque tor .L'.'i received from Spero Andrews on terms requiring him to account for it. to the dry cleaning j firm. At the trial defendants were witnesses and each alleged that the cheque had been handed to Tattle by Spero Andrews. After hearing the evidence the jury returned a verdict of not guilty. Plaintiff alleged that defendants maliciously ami without nnv reasonable or probable cause induced the. prosecution against him. History of the Case Hie circumstances were outlined by counsel for plaintiff, who said that one j day just before last Christmas Spero Andrews decided to purchase a pair of i trousers from the firm Little worked j for. After the trousers wore delivered i Little was sent to collect payment, lie j made several calls and on one of them i

•Spero Andrews wrote out a cheque, hut, j as it hail to he countersigned hy his latJior, lie promised to send it aloiig. I A\ lion the prosecution taken, con- I tinned counsel, both defendants declared that Little had been handed a j cheque, the latter promising to send a ! receipt. The cheque that had hecn made out was subsequently cashed at tlio drapery firm hy a woman, whom the shop assistant knew hy hut would ! not identify. That was the main <\ iI deuce put before the jury when Little i was tried. Since then, however, tho woman who had cashed the cheque had I been found and her evidence would revael that the father of the defendants had handed it to her as payment for rent. Majority Verdict Legal argument was heard as to whether the evidence was sufficient to suggest that defendants had instigated the prosecution, Mr. Justice Quilliam holding that it was. The jury, after retiring, agreed that defendants had instigated the prosecution without any honest belief that plaintiff was guilty of the theft of tliu cheque. The jury also found that de- I fondants did not take proper care to inform themselves of the true facts. Three of tlip four jurymen were in agreement that defendants were actu- ( ated by other motives than a desire to | bring to justice one they believed to lie { guilty, the remaining one being of the , opposite opinion. The jury fixed damages at £4O general and £l7 8s special, i '