SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1380, 18 July 1878, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SITTINGS. Wednesday, July 17. | Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston.] The civil sittings of the Court were resumed at 10 a.m. CHAPMAN V. WILSON. In this case Mr Alfred John Chapman was plaintiff, and Sir JohnCracroft Wilson defen dant. The plaintiff sought to recover damages from the defendant for having falsely and maliciously, and without probable cause, charged the phintiff with having stolen four bales of wool, the property of the defendant. The plaintiff was tried before the Supreme Court on the 7th of January, 1878, on the charge, and acquitted. He now sought to recover £SOO, ordinary damages, and also special damages, £SOO, for the plaintiff having been deprived of his employment as a woolaorter, by reason of the charge so made against him, and the costs and charges to which he had been put to defend himself. Mr Jovnt appeared for the plaintiff, Mr George Harper for the defendant. Mr C. W. Bishop was chosen foreman of of the special jury. The issues sent to the jury went to raise the question whether the defendant had without just cause or suspicion caused the plaintiff to be arrested.

Mr Joynt, having proved the information, recognizance to prosecute and give evidence, commitment, and the other legal documents connected with the case, by the evidence of the Registrar and Clerk of the Resident Magistrate's Court, Christchurch, proceeded to call evidence in support of his case. The plaintiff, the manager of defendant's station at Culverden (Mr Chaa. Huddleston), Messrs Main, Feathery, and Knowles. The evidence of the witnesses went to show that the plaintiff had scoured the wool for the Culverden station, and was also in the habit of purchasing wool for himself. A quantity of what was technically known as "daggles" or refuse wool was thrown into the creek.

For the defence Mr Harper called the defendant, Sir Cracroft Wilson, Mr Huddleston, and Mr A. 0. Wilson. The purport of their evidence was that Sir Cracroft received information from a man employed by the plaintiff that he had stuck to tour bales of wool belonging to Sir Cracroft Wilson. On receiving the information Sir Cracroft Wilson took it down in writing, and the man signed it. The same informal ion was given by the same man to Mr A. C. Wilson. Another man employed by the plaintiff algo gave information that the plaintiff had purloined Sir Cracroft's wool. Uesides this, ho received information from his manager at Culverden, who had been requested to make inquiries. Sir Cracroft's evidence on this point was that he, although having this evidence, did not hastily lay an information, but waited until he heard from the plaintiff, to

whom he had written claiming damages for the four bales of wool supposed to have been stolen, or for an explanation of the affair, to which he received no reply. lie then laid an information, and the criminal proceedings which are the bußis of the present action, were commenced. The evidence for the defence was directed towards proving that Sir Cracoft Wilson had reasonable and probable cause to suspect that the plaintiff had stolen the wool, and that therefore the action must fail from want of proof of malice. The learned counsel on both sides addressed the jury, and his Honor summed up, laying down to the jury the law as to reasonable and probable cause for a person taking the steps the defendant did.

The jury retired to consider their verdict at 5,20 p.m., and at 6.5 pm. the foreman returned into Court and asked whether it was possible for a verdict to be taken of a majority.

His Honor said that the law provided that a verdict of three-fourths of the jury could be taken only after the jury had been retired for three hours, and then three-fourthß, or nine, must intimate to the judge presiding that there was no possibility of their verdict being unanimous. The jury having retired at 5.20, it would be 8.20 before he could take a verdict of a majority, The Jury retired, and at 6.15 again returned into Court with their verdict on the principal issues as follows : Did the defendant in or about the month of September, 1877, falsely and maliciously, and without reasonable or probable cause, appear before a Justice of the Peace, and charge the plaintiff with having feloniously stolen certain goods and chattels of the defendant, that jis to say, four baleß of scoured wool ? Yes.

Did the defendant falsely and maliciously, and without reasonable or probable cause, procure the said Justice to commit the plaintiff to prison, and cause him to be imprisoned for a long time, and to be prosecuted on the said charge at the Supreme Court of New Zealand, Christchurch, on or about the 7th January, 1878, and then and there to take his trial for the said alleged offence ? Yes. Did the defendant afterwards falsely and maliciously, and without reasonable or probable cause, cause the plaintiff to be indicted on the said charge, and did he cause the plaintiff upon the Baid indictment to be placed upon his trial, as aforesaid ? And did he cause the said indictment to be prosecuted against, the plaintiff until the plaintiff was in due manner and form, and in due course of law, tried and acquitted by a jury of the premises in the said indictment charged against him ? Yes.

Has the plaintiff, by reason of the promises, suffered great loss and damage, and has he been injured in his reputation, and suffered pain of body and mind ? Ves. What sum of money, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover from the defendant ? £l5O.

The Court then adjourned until Friday at 10 a.m.