SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 2944, 2 December 1916, Page 14

SUPREME COURT

ALLEGED MALICIOUS PROSECUTION A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES In the Supreme Court yesterday, before Mr. Justice Hosking and a jury of twelve, Charles Henry Eice, a. .soldier; proceeded against Lazarus Wolfe Balkind, to recover £1000 damages for alleged malicious prosecution. Mr. T. Neavo appeared for the' plaintill', and Sir John Findlay, K.C., with Mr. D. M. Findlay, for tho defendant. Mr. Neave, in outlining the case for the plaintiff, stated that his client was at the present time on active service, his evidence having been taken on commission. It - was alleged that Balkind had maliciously and with no reasonable or probable cause prosecuted Rice in the Magistrate's Court at AVollingtoh on a charge of obtaining money under false pretences. . That charge, it was alleged, had been made by Balkind not because he believed there was anything in it, but from a motive, vile and- wicked, of extorting certain money from the -plaintiff on a loan. The hearing of the case in the Magistrate's. Court resulted in the acquittal of Rice, the plaintiff in the present case. Mr. Neave went on to say that Balkind was a registered moneylender, and llice liad been a tally clerk. Eice, unfortunately for him, became in need of financial assistance, and approached Balkind. Several transactions look place, the last of which was.in July, 1015, when Kice borrowed .£3O, the loan being secured by a bill of sale over his furniture. Although the loan was only for £'60, the document purported to secure the repayment of Mi). After three months ilice paid .£lO by way of interest, and three months later under pressure from Balkind, and in addition to the security already given, gave a promissory note for £50. When the time came for. payment, Eice was unable to meet the amount, and on Balkind's bailiff calling at his home, his wife claimed tho furniture as her property. The next thing was that plaintiff saw an. intimation in the evening paper that criminal proceedings had been instituted in the Magistrate's Court against him, although no demand had been made on him or planation sought. Counsel contended that the charge brought against his client in the Lower Court was absolutely groundless ■ to Balkind's knowledge, and was instituted not for the purpose of. bringing a wrongdoer to justice,' but to extort by means of threats tho money which-lie claimed Rico owed him. The evidence of Louisa Bice, wife of the plaintiff, and of Walter Eice, his father, was heard. Sir John Findlay contonded that tho plaintiff should bo nonsuited, as there was no proof of malice, nnd quoted legal authorities in support of his contention.His Honour reserved his decision on the law point raised. Theajury, after a five-hour retirement, disagreed on all the issues. DJ.VOBCE COURT. A sitting of the Divorce Court was held yesterday, the Chief Justice (Sir Eobert Stout) presiding, when a large number of undefended cases were disposed of. Herbert John Osborne v. .Elizabeth Osborne. Petitioner was an English military reservist and joined . the colours when war broke out. Ho served in the trenches in France, when he was "gassed" and was eventually.; discharged as medically unfit. On his return to New Zealand he found that his wife had been guilty of misconduct. Decree nisi granted. George William Haslem v;- Agnes Haslem, on tho ground of alleged desertion and misconduct. Tho partieswero married in 1899.—Decree nisi.. Herbert Carlton AVoodbridge v. Martha AVoodbridge, alleged desertion and misconduct. The marriage took place in February, 1905, and in October of the same year tho petitioner's wife left him. —Decree nisi. Victoria Violotta Norman v. Joseph Norman. The parties were married on June 8, 1911, onil'on tho'following day. the defendant left her. ~Ske had not seen him since.—Decree nisi. Florence ICate Frizell v. George Frizell, the grounds of the petition .being alleged desertion.—Decree nisi 'granted. Alice Barber v. Richard Walter Barber, on the grounds of desertion.—Granted. Lucy May Pattisonv. Eobert Patti.son. The parties Were married .in England, and later the husband came to New Zealand, and for a time sent the petitioner M a week. Suddenly 'the payments ceased and the petitioner then came out to NewZealand, where she- met her husband. He subsequently disappeared andishe had not since heard of him.—Decree nisi.Elsie Saunders v. Albert Arthur Featheriton Saunders, alleged desertion and/', misconduct.—Decree nisi. Nicholas Burns v. Margaret Ellen Burns, stated. that three months after the marriage his wife deserted him and he had not seen her since.—Decree nisi. Elizabeth Manson v. Arthur Baron Hanson.—Decree nisi. Catherine Ann Crawford v. Thomas Crawford, for alleged misconduct. There were eight children of the marriage — Dccrce_ nisi, with custody of the children until further order was made. Mabel Helen Hillmer v. Adolph Rudolf Frank llilhncr, and of Mary Ann Phipps v. John Alexander Phipps, alleged desertion in each case.—Decree nisi. Albert Peck v. Daisy Ann Valentine Peck, alleged misconduct.—Decree nisi. Jjaura Beatrice Baker v. Edward Alfred Baker, alleged misconduct and desertion.—Decree nisi. Custody of the child of. tho marriage'was given the petitioner, marriage was given the petitione xzfiflff Margaret Rebecca Diamond v. Francis Charles Diamond, on the ground of alleged desertion, drunkenness, and illtreatment.—Decree nisi. Nellie Evans v. William Alfred Evans, desertion and misconduct.—Decree nisi, with custody of the children. Agnes Earnshaw v. Henrv Earnshaw, on the ground of alleged' desertion —■ Decree nisi. WHOSE WIFE WAS SHE? A MUCH-MARRIED - WOMAN. • A divorce suit calculated to tax the ingenuity of the proverbial Philadelphia lawyer to unravel came before the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) in the>Divorce Court yesterday. Mr. T. M. Wilford appeared fur the petitioner, and his recital of tho complicated matrimonial adventures of the respondent caused a good deal of'itmusenient. Tim facts as stated were that William George Hollier, a gun barrel grinder, married Annie Latham at the Registry Office, Birmiii". iiam, England, on April 0, 1898. On February 25, 1901, the woman went through' a form of marriage wjth Frederick Bradley. Bradley and his wife were apparently living. together in perfect happiness, when their bliss was rudely disturbed by William-George Hollier, who strolled into the house and indicated to Bradley that Mrs. Bradley was not really Mrs. Bradley, but Mrs. Hollier. The lady admitted the impeachment when taxed, and Bradley, apparently fearing a prosecution for "bigamy, paid Hollier vlilO, and skipped to New Zealand with Mrs. Bradley, alias Mrs. Hollier. Tho parties lived together in tho Dominion, for a time, when one day Bradley found that his better half had vanished. She had decided upon another matrimonial venture, and married a man by tho name of Tompleton. But her affection for the latter was not very deep, for very soon after the marriage 'she left 'J'empleton and went to live with a man named Lyle. It Was not claimed that she had married I,ylc. Templcton had commenced proceedings in divorce, naming Lyle as the co-respondent. Lylo declares that he cannot be held as 'corespondent unless it can be proved that Hollier. to whom .the woman was first married, was dead when she went through the form of marriage with Templeton. Bradley, through, his solicitor, Mr. T. M. AVvford, sought tho annulment of his marriage with Annie Lathr.ni (Mrs. Hollier). Bradley gave evidence and narrated ■ the details as they affected him. i An order for (lie immediate aniiul- ! incut of tho marriage as asked was granted.