WAS THERE ABUSE?

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1612, 2 December 1912, Page 5

WAS THERE ABUSE?

DOCTOR & HIS WIFE ARRESTEDON BOARD S.S. SURREY, STRONG PROTEST IN COTJRT, An affair which was described by one of the Bolioitora concerned as "a most extraordinary occurrence" was vontilated in the Magistrate's Court on Saturday morning. The parties before the Court were A. C. Story, M.D., and his wife, Martha Story. Dr. Story was proceeded against by W. H. Grove, fruit merchant ami Island trader, of Auckland, for the recovery of ,£2B, the price of a buggy; and Mrs.. Story was alleged to be in debt to Eugene Fischer, pork butcher, of Auckland, to the extent of .£25, which was described as "money lent and interest." Mr. W. G. Eiddell, S.M., was on the Bench. Jfr. C. H. Izard appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. T. M. Wili'ord for the defendants. The Arrest. Mr. Izard said that Dr. and Mr 3. Story had been arrested on board the steamer Surrey on iPriday night. Both had proposed Bailing for England, Dr. Story proceeding as snip's surgeon. Acting under instructions from their Auckland agents, Ins firm had had the defendants apprehended on a writ of arrest. They had been brought boforo Dr. M'Arthur, S.M., on Friday night, and his Worship had adjourned the matter till Saturday morning. Mr. Izard understood that the steamer (which had been timed to sail on Saturday morning) would not leave Wellington till Tuesday. ' Mr. Wilford: As I am instructed, this is a most unwarrantable abuse of the proceedings of this Court. Aβ I can prove by documentary evidence, which I hold in my hand, it is undoubtedly a grave abuse of the process of the Court to arrest (under such circumstances) a ship's surgeon and his wife on the evening before their vessel is due to sail. The fact that a. medical man and his wife are so arrested is so damning to the career of that man that I must take the first opportunity to put the plaintiff upon his proof." Medical Man at Rarotonga. "The defendant, Dr. Story," continued Mr. Wilford, "has been, for some time in charge of, or assisting in, the medical administration in Earotonga. On October 3, 1911, after being temporarily employed by that administration, ho was thanked in writing for his assistance and complimented on his work. Prior to that he had been for nine months superintendent of the Costley Home, in Auckland, and ho is told in a testimonial that ho performed his duties efficiently. : . . . "He is married to a lady who was n resident of Rarotonga for fifteen years, and who owns there a plantation worth about .£2OOO. The lady, who was a widow when, married to Dr. Story, went to the plaintiff Fischer in Auckland for a loan of i>lso on the security of her property in Rarotonga. . . . Fischer lent her ■£80 on a promissory note, and the sum was payable on demand. Five hours after handing her the money he demanded it back. She returned it to him in full, and received the promissory note back. That was on August 10, 1910, and now ehe is sued for j£2s 'money lent and interest/ The Claim Against the Doctor. "The claim against Doctor Story," continued Mr. Wilford, "is for' which the plaintiff alleges is owing for a buggy bought in Earotonga in August, 1911, from the manager of an Auckland firm (the plaintiff's firm). This buggy never arrived in Earotonga till the middle of January of this year, and before then Dr. Story had refused to take it on account of non-delivery. The doctor's wife, howover, agreed to take it if Grove would barter it in exchange for copra, as he was a dealer in Island produce. Grove would not agree to this, and from January until last night Court aid was not invoked. Last night, after plaintiffs had failed to avail themselves of all other opportunities of taking proceedings, Dr. and Mi's. Story were summarily arrested on board the Surrey and were brought ashore. '. "If these faots are anything like the truth," concluded Mr. Wilford, "there has been a downright abuse of the process of this Court. . . . They are arrested and. 'run in , —people who never left a penny of debt, and who have a freehold property. I would like to hear counsel for the plaintiffs."

What the Prosecution Had to Say. His Worehip: Yes, what have you to say, Mr. Izard. ,

Mr. Izard: What my friend eays is a very excellent opening, but it has nothing to do with, the matter as it is at present constituted. AH wo have at present are tho instructions from Auckland. As scon as I heard that the defendants were arrested I telegraphed .to our agents in Auckland . . . . and I received in reply a telegram stating: "Both debts absolutely due. . . ." xl have not the material at hand to answer what my friend has said, but I presume from these telegrams that the plaintiffs' case is perfectly sound and true in all particulars. , Mr. Wilford: They could not say anything else after arresting them. Mr, Izard: That is not the point. ... I ask that the matter he adjourned till Tuesday. The defendants will not be further prejudiced, and I will immediately communicate with Auckland, and say that we must have, the evidence here by Tuesday. " . ■ . Plaintiffs Nonsuited; His Worship: Assuming that the matter i was dismissed now, the defendants would still be liable to arrest. Mr. Wilford: Mrs. Story has a fifteen-months-old baby, which she is arrested from. . ' ■ . Mr. Izard: Oh, no! Mr. Wilford: Pardon me! She is prepared to go to gaol, but Bhe is not willing to be separated from her child. His Worship: You need not address me any further. The position I take up is this: Plaintiffs do not lose their rights altogether even if they are nonsuited. At the time Mr. Weston (of Izard and Weeton) took these proceedings, I told him that he must be prepared to go;oa at once. He is not, and plaintiffs are nonsuited.