SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 2934, 15 July 1872, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SITTINGS.

This Day. (Before Mr Justice Chapman.) His Honor took his seat on the Bench at ton o’clock.

MALICIOUS PROSECUTION,

Patrick Cottar v. James Torrih was an action to recover LSOO damages for malicious prosecution. There was a special count for damages in respect of expenses incurred in defending the proceedings out of which the present action arose, injury to plaintiffs reputation by reason of those proceedings, and on account of their aggravated nature. Mr Macasscy appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Smith for the defendant.

The plaintiff and defendant reside at Cardroua ; the former being a slaughterman, and the latter a sheep farmer, which business plaintiff also carried on. The parties owned about 1200 sheep a-picce. About three years ago, plaintiff instituted civil proceedings against the defendant, and recovered judgment against him j and on behalf of the former it was contended that the result had been to raise ill-bood between them. At the end of last year defendant informed constable Gumming, stationed at Cardrona, he had lost a considerable number of sheep; and moreover that he suspected Cottar of having stolen them. This charge ,was made to the police constable on more than one occasion, and, in order to bring the matter to an issue, the coustab’e recommended that if defendant found any of his sheep in Cottar’s possession, he should send for him (the constable) and he would institute the necessary inquiries, At length the charge assumed specific form, and on the 12th January defendant and his son appeared in Cottar’s yard, when he was engaged mustering and shearing sheep, and said, “ I have come to search for stolen sheep. ” This accusation naturally roused Cottar’s anger, and the result was he assaulted jTorrie, for which he was subsequently lined. The constable was sent for, and Tome having selected one out of a flock of sixty sheep, as being his property, he accused Cottar of having stolen it. Torrie’s sheep were branded with a circle, and had a horizontal bar across, and had oar marks—two slits on the off car. Cottar s brand was T on the near shoulder, with a slit on each ear. The sheep selected by Torrie unmistakably bore Cottar’s brand, and each of its ears had a slit on it j nevertheless Torrie persisted in claiming it as his, and it was carried away by him. The charge of stealing it, preferred against Cottar, was investigated in the Warden’s Court at Arrowtown, and at the investigation, vhich took place before Mr Bectham, Torrie and seven witnesses were examin d. The magistrate dismissed the case without calling on Cottar for any explanation, or examining any of his witnesses, of whom a number were in attendance, -For the plaintiff it was alleged the prosecution was a malicious one, and in support of that contention an extract from the defendant’s examination before the Warden at Arrow town was read, as showing the groundlessness of the charge he made against Cottar:—“ The sheep produced has one slit only on the off ear ; my brand is two slits on the off ear. To explain the contradiction, I would say that the second slit might have been cut off by Cottar. I cannot point out any mark showing where the seiond car has been cut. The sheep produced docs not show any mark of having been cut recently qn the ear ; but I believe the ear has been recently cut, for the purpose of cutting off the second slit. It is merely my suspicion that the second slit has been cut off. ... I have no hesitation

in saying the sheep is mine : at the same time I have only a suspicion that the car

was cut.”

Mr Smith said he wonldjmerely put the defendant in the witness box that the jury might bo enabled to judge upon one poiut, vi/., whether or not as had been pointed out by the learned counsel on the other side, the defendant in bringing the charge of sheep stealing against Cottar, had been actuated by a vindictive feeling arising out of a trumpery action for LG some three years before. Torrie, as would appear, was a very simple mind d man, and though he acted possibly on good moral grounds, pui'orjjunatply for him he had not sufficient legal evidence tp Justify him in getting the criminal law in motion It would appear perfectly clear that he was not actuated by any such motive as had been attributed to him ; and that he really believed his sheep had bc.«i stolen. He subiijitted Cottar’s reputation could not have suffered to the extent of L3OO as alleged by him ; and that all that he was entitled to was the reasonable expenses of himself and

his witnesses, Torrle would be auflflcientty punished for taking the law into his own bauds without taking advice, in the first instance, as to whether he had sufficient grounds to go upon, by having to pay the heavy expenses of this action. The defendant, in cross examination, said he still believed Cottar stoic his sheen.

The jury, after half-au-hour’s ret renlent, found for the plaintiff. Damages, LBO. DETENTION OK TITLE PEE r S. William MTlroy v. James Bee was a claim for damages for the wrongful detention of title deeds. Mr Barton for the plaintiff; Mr Ma-wsoy for the defendant. The plaintiff is a quarryman at Oamaru ; and the defendant a storekeeper and commission agent there. In 1807, plaintiff purchased from Mr Jackson, manager of the Union Bank at Dunedin, section I, block 80, Oamaru. In March of that year, ho placed the section in Mr Bee’s hands for saloon commission, handing over to him the Crown grant and conveyance of theproperty. Months elapsed without anyone offering to purchase the land, and plaintiff intending to come to Dunedin, wont to Mr Bee and asked for his deeds. The latter at first said he thought he had returned them to plaintiff, but on the latter denying that he had ever received them hack, he promised to institute a search for them in his own premises. A good many conversations took place between the parties, and in one of them Bee said he must either have lost the deeds, or they had been taken away, and he promised to get a copy of the conveyance, but plaintiff said it would be of very little use if be had not a copy of the grant a l so. Ultimately Bee referred him to his lawyer saying that he had a letter from plaintiff which took the responsibility off the shoulder iof himself. Finding negotiation useless, plaintiff brought an action in the Oamaru District Court to recover possession of the documents, but Mr Bee objecting on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction, the case fell through. Then followed the present action, since the commencement of which the missing documents had been found. The case had not concluded at half-past four o’clock.