SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3086, 9 January 1873, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL* ITTINGS. Tins Day. (Before Mr Justice Chapman and a common jury.) Ait ken v. Haynes, This was an action for damages for malicious prosecution and imprisonment. It was set forth that on the 12th of June last, the defendant, Thom is Haynes, livery-stablekeeper, Dunedin, did felonious y, maliciously, and without reasonable or probable cause, swear an information before the stipendiary magistrate at Naseby, charging the plaintiff, William Aitken, with having stolen nine horses, whereby defendant obtained a warrant, and had Aitken arrested by a constable, taken to the gaol at Naseby, and locked up. On the ollowing day plaintiff was taken before the Magistrate’s Court. Haynes gave evidence against him, but the information was dismissed, and plaintiff was set at liberty. Mr Barton, with Mr Chapman, appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Smith for defendant, Mr Brewer, judge’s associate, produced telegrams. The defendant in this action was examined at a former trial, at which the telegrams now produced were used. Defendant then admitted his signature to some of them. There were also telegrams signed “Pritchard,” buthe could not say that defendant acknowledged having received them. The document produc- d was signed by Mr Robinson, R. M., at Naseby. Wiliam Aitken, plain-iff, said in June last he was driving a team for Roddam. He had been driving for him for six years and months. On the Saturday before leaving town he saw Roddam fir the last time. In the afternoon of that day he drove out of t wn for Naseby a timber waggon ami a team of nine horses. One of the horses was his own property, and so far as he knew the others belonged to Roddam. On the Friday after starting he arrived at P-groot. and in the evening he met Haynes and Pritchard and another. Pritchard told him in Haynes’ presence that he ha-1 come up to take possest-ien of the team, and witness replied that lie would first go to town and *ee Roddam. Pritchard showed him a document purporting to be a bid of sa'e. He told Pritchard that there were horses in the t am that never belonged to Roddam. Pritchard replied that, if such was the case, he would have the money back or put Roddam in prison. He sai-i to Pritchard and Haynes that he would be back from town by Monday’s coach, and that he would not give lip possession until he returned. Pritchard thin a (vised defendant nob to move in the matter until the Monday. Returning from town, and when a little this sideof Naseby, heovertook what had been his team. A man named Graham was driving it. He asked for the whip, and at the same time got on the shafts. Haynes objected to give up possession, re m irking that if witness had been civil at Pigroot he would have told him more about it. That niyht he slept at Naseby. fn the early morning he heard the sound of the bell used with the team, went in the direction, iound the horses and led them to the stables That day he met Haynes, and was told by him to clear out, as a warrant was out for him. He did not go away, and on the next night he was .arrested in David Miller’s tent by a policeman, on the charge of horse-stealing. He was taken to the gaol at Naseby and locked up. The following day he was taken before tUe magistrate, and defendant appeared against him, and asked to have the case postponed. He was let out on bail. Gn the Monday following the case was gone into. Haynes gave evidence against him. He, however, was dismissed. He called two witnesses for his defence to whom he subsequently paid L2B. He employed an agent to conduct the case, and paid him L 5, The arrest, charge, and subsequent proceedings he felt were a disgrace to him and a source of annoyance. Cross-examined : He did not say to Pritchard, in another case, “Take care of that ro *n horse, I lent Roddam the money to purchase it.” viilikin Thomas Haynes, defendant, said the telegrams produced passed botw<en him and Pritchard. On the morning plaintiff left Pigroot for Dunedin, Pritchard told him to

take charge of the team, Me then asked plaintiff iosh"W him the way to yoke the horss up. Aitken replied that Anderson wo ild show him, and at the same time observed, “Take care of the roan horse, as t lent 11 oddam the money to pay for it.” He did not overhear any conversation that morning between plaintiff and Pritchard. He did not hear Pritchard say, “Tom, wait until he comes back from town.” He did not hear plaintiff say, “ I am going to town, and wdl not give up possession until I return again.” He fully understood that plaintiff left for town knowing that he was to take charge of the waggon and team. Before leaving, plaintiff took his bedclothes out of the waggon. On the way from Pigront to Naseby plaintiff overtook the waggon Graham was driving it at, the time, l'lamt,ff jumped on the .-h and Hubert Aitken sai l, “Kn :ck Graham down and take the whip 'rom him.” After some other words, plaintiff got down from the waggon and demanded the whip and witness refuse I. Plaintiff then went away. He camped about a mile from Naseby. and at 11 o’clock saw the horses for the last time that night. On Wednesday morning he found them in two stables, locked up, and then wait to the sergeant of police, and that: officer went with him to one of the stables, but the owner refused to open the door unless the person who stabled the bores gave permission. They then wmnt to the other stable, and were told who stabled the horses, in the evening he consulted a !awy r, telling him that the horses were placed in his charge by Mr Pritchard, that they wore in certain stable?, and that be feared they would he driv- n away that night, lie wa-i advised to commence proceedings. A warrant was obtaiue I by the lawyer, and given to the police. On returning from the Court, he mot Aitken, and said, “Yon are very foolish for locking up the horses: there is a warrant out for you, and i don’t want to see yon lo kod up: yon had better clear out.” Aii ken did not reply, and he did not see him again uutil after the anvst. He did believe, wh u at the Police ’ ffice, that plaintiff had committed a felony, but he did not wish him to suffer the consequences, i here was no ill-feeling between him and plaintiff. Had plaintiff been committed, he would have become bondsman for him. He proceeded in this matter on behalf of Mr Pritchard, simply in the capacity of a servant, He did not know what plaintiff was going to town for when he left Pigroot, He thought plaint'ff h.id made a mistake iu not going on with the waggon. He did not m ike the arrest with J ritchard’s orders or knowledge. Befo e the warrant was granted, he said to the solicitor that Aitken formerly had charge of the horses. He was aw .re that Pritchard had offered to continue Aitken as driver.

David Anderson, carrier, said he saw defendant at Pigroot some time in June last Pritchard was present at the time. A fter ab that had tak>-n place, and Pritchard ba l gone away, Haynes proceeded to yoke up the horses, remarking. “What is tho good o r ‘ Bib's (meaning ■ itken) going to town ” He replied, “ Why did you not say that before.” He took plaintiff’s blankets from the wagg >n and placed them in the waggon he was driving. That was after \ itken had gone away. Cross-examined: He took the blankets because he did no* think Haynes wanted them. He caild not give another reason 'or taking them. Aitken understood that he was to take the blankets on to the Hoghurn, whore Aitken would likely overtake him. Edward Devme, couch-driver, said, in June last he drove for Cobb & Co. During that time Pritchard got on the coach at Pigroot. He remember* d a conversation which took place over night, but could not say whether Haynes was present. It took place iu the bar of the Pigroot hotel, Pritchard asked him if he had room for Aitken in the coach the following morning, as he wanted to see Boddara. Ho did not think Haynes was present when the coach started in the morning. Mr Gordon, Deputy Registrar of the Court, said the document produced was received by him from the lUsident Magistrate’s Court at Nasehy, and contained depositions in the case of Haynes v Aitkon. Counsel for defendant objected to the document being put in as evidence, on the ground that its authenticity had not been proved either bv the Magistrate or Clerk of the Court at Naseby, but his Honor overruled the objection. [Left sitting,]