ALLEGED WRONGFUL ARREST.

Otago Witness, Issue 3168, 2 December 1914, Page 12

ALLEGED WRONGFUL ARREST.

SUIT BROUGHT BY A DOCTOR. VERDICT FOB DEFENDANT. AUCKLAND, November 26. The Supreme Court was occupied yesterday and to-day with, an action in which £2OO general damages and £3 Is special damages are claimed for alleged wrongful arrest, brought by Alfred Cuthbert Story, medical practitioner, formerly of Rarotonga, against William Henry Grove, island trader, Auckland. The allegation forming the basis' of claim is that the defendant maliciously and without reasonable excuse had the plaintiff arrested at Wellington on the ground that Dr Story was about to evade payment of £2O, which the defendant alleged was owing by the doctor for a buggy imported from America to Rarotonga. Dr H. D. Bamford appeared for the plaintiff, and Messrs J. R Reed, K.G., and Anderson for the defendant. The plaintiff’s case was that he had never seen the buggy; that he ordered one on Mr Grove’s manager assuring him that he could have it within two months (that was in August, 1911); that as the buggy had not arrived in the middle of October the plaintiff told his wife to inform the defendant’s manager at Rarotonga that he would not take it; that the buggy did not arrive till January, 1912; that from that date till October, 1912, the defendant threatened to take proceedings; that Story refused to take delivery of the buggy all this time; that no legal proceedings were taken, and that none were taken till Story was leaving Wellington for England as ship’s surgeon on the steamer Surrey; that he was then arrested and brought before the court; that on an application for a second adjournment by defendant’s counsel Grove was nonsuited. Dr Story was cross-examined at length; suggesting that he had not discharged other debts. Mr Reed moved for a nonsuit on the grounds—(l) that there was no evidence of malice; (2) the absence of reasonable and probable cause. Mr Justice Cooper reserved his decision on these points. The case for the defence was that the defendant had acted honestly in having plaintiff arrested; that he considered he had a good cause for action; that he was never informed that the doctor had repudiated the purchase on the grounds that the buggy was not delivered within two months; that the sole reason he knew for the doctor failing to take delivery of the buggy was that he was unable to pay for it,"and that the sole reason for delay

in taking action was want of necessary evidence, which was eventually obtained. After lengthy legal arguments, the jury found a verdict for defendant. Costs were allowed against plaintiff on the middle scale.