CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

New Zealand Mail, 28 May 1902, Page 45

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

ALLEGED MALICIOUS PROSECUTION.

Two claims for J 5501 each were brought against George Coley in the Supreme Court on Thursday by Hans and Emma Andrieson respectively.

Mr Wilford appeared for the claimants and Mr Skerrett for the defendant. The claimants were a Foxton fisherman and his wife; the defendant was a flaxmiller at the sanie town.

The claims were made on the ground of malicious prosecution. “■ The following jury was empanelled to try the cases, Which were taken together by consent of counsel:—Hardie Shaw, Walter M'eldrum, Hugh Blair, Ernest George Chandler, William Denton, Thomas Leydon. George Wiltshire, Frederick William Wallace, Thomas Bowler, Henry Charles, George Ross, Richard Skelholf.

Counsel for the claimants told the jury that on the 10th March in this year a man named Bushett, a friend of the Andriesons, was at their house, and while Bushett was there a daughter of the defendant Coley came to the house and offered to sell chaff and oats. As a result of the offer a bargain was made to deliver to Bushett five 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 and chaff, and subsequently another 6s. This was paid by Andrieson on behalf of Bushett, and a receipt was given by Coley’s daughter. There had been previous dealings between the parties. Subsequently Coley came home and questioned his man Mason as to where certain bags of oats were. Mason told him they had been delivered to Andrieson, whereupon Coley got in a passion and said he would "put the in gaol.” Coley summoned the police but he evidently changed his mind as to Andrieson, for lie got Mason put in durnnce. Mason was there for a night. Coley next —without making any preliminary complaint to the Andriesons —got a search warrant and searched their premises. Andrieson produced the receipts for £1 6s signed by Coley’s daughter. Coley became further incensed, refused to look at the receipts, and said he “would spend JUiOl) over the —— thing.” Subsequently ho sent his sons and a policeman to Andriesons’ to remove the fodder. After this was done Coley went to a Justice of the Peace and swore an information that Mr and Mrs Andrieson had received the goods knowing them to he stolen. In the interval the case against Mason came on, but Coley offered no evidence. The case of theft against Andrieson was withdrawn by Coley, but he offered no expression of regret nor an apology. After the case was withdrawn a sum (Jf 17s was offered to Andrieson by Colev’s solicitor, but the money was declined by Andrieson. , Tiie dcfence''of the case was that the surroundings of the transaction were such as to fully justify Coley's actions in the matter; also that the case against Andrieson was withdrawn with the consent of the aggrieved parties. The witnesses were cross-examined by Mr Skerrett with a view to proving that the corn and chaff were sold by Mrs Coley, through her daughter, against the will of Coley, and also without his knowledge. The price paid by Coley for the oats was 2s lOd per bushel c.i.f. at Foxton, and it was urged by the defence that the price at which the small quantity was sold to complainants or Bushett (by tlio agency of a twelve-year-old child) was presumptive evidence to tbs purchasers that the transaction was an unjustifiable one, not to uso a harsher term. It was also contended for the defence that the doors of the barn in which the oats and chaff were stored had been broken in so that the goods could he got out.

The Foxton constable (Foster) gave evidence that when lie executed the search warrant at Andriesons’s house nothing was said about the chaff having been bought for one Bushett. The constable also deposed that when the cases against the Andriesons were called on it was stated by one solicitor that he had arranged with another solicitor (us between the two parties) that the cases should he settled by Coley paying back the sum of 16s to Andrieson in return for the money he had paid for the oats and chaff since, taken back by Coley (the balance of the 26s paid being deducted on account of two sacks of chaff used before the time of repossession.) • The witness also gave evidence that at the time of the trouble witness was paying 3s 6d per bushel for oats and os per bag for oaten chaff. In answer to his Honor, the witness said that Coley told the Justice of the Peace who isstied 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, hut witness believed that Coley told the Justice that also. Witness could not rely upon his memory even for the substance of what was said by Coley to the Justice: the events took place some time ego, and witness had thought the case was done with for ever, 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.’ The Justice of the Peace who signed the warrant (Mr Jinks) must have known about it. His Honor expressed tlio opinion that it was a monstrous tiling to lay an information against neighbours—under such conditions of affairs without giving them an opportunity of explaining possession.

Mr Skerrett said his client might have acted as an ignorant man, or even as an impetuous man; but not ns a malicious man. It was not open to him under the law to charge his wife with larceny, and he was anxious to take action that would put some stop to his trouble.

Mr Wilford submitted that the solicitor who had affected to compromise the case on behalf of the Andriesons had no authority from them to act- upon. As to the price of oats and chaff at the time other witnesses had deposed that the price paid by the complainants for the oats and chaff was about the general price in Foxton for such goods. Mr Skerrett, in opening liis case, con-

tended that Coley had rectified his mistake at the earliest possible day. The complainant, counsel urged, had stated (when he refused the sum of 16s or 17s offered to him on behalf of Coley) that he "®d e good goose and was going to pluck 1 r. ■ rhero had been no malice displayed by Coley in the case; his actions had been only ill-advised. As a matter of fact Mrs Coley had denied having sold the things, and Coley thought that the goods had been sold by his man Mason to the .Andriessons. When Coley found out that his wife was concerned in the matter he at once took steps to withdraw the case against the Andriesons. Nothing further .was heard for some time about the matter; and then without any preliminary letters a writ was served upon thfe present defendant. Tlie action was an attempt to magnify a. storm in a teapot ; an institution of litigation which was pure speculation.

The eases for recovery of £IOO2 in the aggregate brought by Hans and Ennna Andreson, of Foxton, against George Coley, of the same town, were concluded on Friday, before liis Honor Mr Justice Edwards. A number of witnesses for the defence were examined, after which the jury retired. They were absent for about two hours, at the expiration of which time they returned to Court with a verdict of £3O for the plaintiff Hans Andreson and £25 for his wife, Emma Andreson. Judgment was entered accordingly, with costs as on a £55 verdict, with fifteen guineas for flic second day’s trial. His Honor told the jury he thought they had returned a. proper verdict in every respect. Tie thought they had shown moderation and justice in nice combination.