SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2269, 11 July 1881, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

SITTINGS AT NISI PRIUS. This Day. [Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston.] The civil session of the Supreme Court opened at 11 a.m. BANK OF NEW SOUTH 'WALES V CAMPBELL. In this case Mr George Harper said that Mr Garrick and himself had agreed to a verdict for plaintiff for £127 12s. His Honor directed a verdict to be entered by confession for the amount of £127 12s. For plaintiff, Mr Garrick ; for defendant, Mr George Harper. DEFAULTING JUBOE. A juror named Chapman was fined 40s for non-attendance. O’NEILL V MC XNTYEB.

In this cate Arthur O'Neill was pla ; ntiff, and Bobert Mclntyre defendant. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had falsely and maliciously caused the plaintiff to be arrested on a charge of larceny. The plaintiff, therefore, sought to recover £SOO as damages and £2OO as special damages. The case for the plaintiff was that he had been a neighbour of defendant for some years in the Ashburton district. In 1879 the plaintiff assisted defendant to get in his harvest. During the harvest operations the defendant had to take off his vest, in the pocket of which was a silver lover hunting watch. The watch was soon after missed, but it was thought that it had got lost. The plaintiff had to go through the Court, some of the money for which was found by the defendant. Mclntyre, after plaintiff [had got through the Court, sued him for the money advanced and failed. Upon this the defendant gave vent to some very angry expressions, and the two became enemies. Ik.. was then whispered throughout the district that O’Neill had stolen* the watch, and some twenty months after the loss of the watch the plaintiff was arrested upon warrant for stealing it. He was locked up, and appeared duly before the magistrate, and was discharged, there being no evidence against him. Ultimately it was discovered that a man named Bradford had found the watch whilst ploughing a paddock on Mclntyre’s farm, and had worn it till November, 1880, when hejbrought it into Ashburton to the watchmaker. Bradford'swore that O’Neill had never had the watch, and that it had never been out of his possession, though a witness for the prosecution swore that he had seen O’Neill with the watch, and that he had offered to exchange watches with him. This story was not believed by the magistrate before whom the plaintiff appeared, and the case was dismissed.

Mr Joynt appeared for the plaintiff, Mr Wilding for the defendant. Mr Joynt, having briefly opened the case and stated the facts to the jury upon which ho relied, called evidence in support of his ease.

The case was proceeding when we wert to press, the plaintiff being under examination.