SUPREME COURT.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume 16, Issue 863, 10 November 1870, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

Yesterday. /. J. Pritchard v. Henry Parker. An action for seduction of plaintiff's daughter, Elizabeth Ann, aged 14 years. Damages laid at £SOO. Mr Stedman appeared for the plaintiff; defendant did not appear, and was unrepresented by counsel. It was stated in Court that He had left the Province. From the evidence it appeared that the defendant was a married man, and had resided with his family at Waitangi. Bather more than a year since plaintiff's daughter was employed by him as nurse, and it was during the absence of Mrs Parker from home, shortly afterwards, that the occurrence took place which led to this action. The jury, after a short absence, found a verdict for, plaintiff on all the issues, and assessed the damages at ,£125. Mr Stedman applied for an order for speedy execution, as there was reason to believe that the defendant was about to leave the Colony. His Honor replied that if an affidavit to that effect were made, the order would be granted. John Stockman Buchanan r. James Watt and Leonard Roper, An action for damages for false vox* prisonment by the orders of defendant. Mr Stedman, who appeared for the plaintiff, said that the action against Mr Watt had been withdrawn. The matters of fact were not denied by defendant, aud the question for the jury was thus reduced to one amount of damages to which plaintiff was entitled. W. Hebberley, deposed: I know the plaintiff and defendant in this case. I saw them at Elsthorpe station last March, I was then a bailiff of the Supreme Court, and also special constable. Defendant told me to take plaintiff and bis brother into custody on a charge of assault. I did so. 1 had seen no assault committed. I took them to Mr Chapman, the nearest Justice of the Peace. He said he would have nothing to do with the case, and ordered me to take them to Waipawa to Mr Henry Russell. I did so, defendant accompanying me. I put plaintiff and his brother in the Waipawa lock-up, and left them there all night. I went and saw Mr Henry Russell. Defendant went with me. Mr Russell asked me on what ground I had arrested the plaintiff and his brother. He then instructed me to release them, which I did, the day after I had locked them up. John Stockman Buchanan, deposed: I am plaintiff in this action. 1 remember the 16th March last. I was then at Elsthorpe station with my younger brother Tom. Defendant, Trask, Wheeler, and the last witness were also there. Defendant drove a flock of sheep into my yards, and I drove them out. He said he would give me into custody if I did not allow him to use my yards. I asked him to show me the authority by which he claimed the. use of them. He refused to do so. Mr Tiffen and Mr Peacock, the sheep inspector, were present. Roper rode up to Peacock and appeared to speak to him, after which he ordered his men to drive the sheep up once more. My orother and I stood in the gate, so that the sheep would not go in. . Defendant then told Hebberley to take us into custody. Hebberley came and told us we were his, prisoners. I asked him on what charge. He replied, " 1 suppose for not allowing the sheep to go into the yard." I said, " That is no charge; if you take me into custody you must remove me by force." He took me by the shoulders and dragged me across the yard, I simply offered a passive resistance. He took ua before Mr Chapman, J.P.; it was about an hour and a half after our arrest before wa arrived there. After hearing the circumstances, Chapman said he would have nothing to do with the case ; that it was one requiring two magistrates to deal with. I did not hear him tell the constable to take me before Mr Henry Rus* sell. X told Chapman the circumstances of our arrest. We were then taken to Waipawa and put in the lock-up about 5 p.m. He released us about 3 p.m. next day. It was about 9 a.m. on the 16th when we were taken in charge. This being the whole of the evidence, bis Honor poiuted out to Mr Stedman that legally the defendant was only responsible lor the illegal arrest and the hour's detention in custody of the plain* tiff and his brother, previous to their being brought before Mr Chapman. Tiiat gentleman having, in his capacity *& a,

magistrate, ordered them to be taken before the Waipawa bench, was responsible for what ensued, and so far as he (his Honor) could see, the defendant could not be held responsible for the false imprisonment, Mr Stedman maintained that the false imprisonment was consequent on the ilie* gal action of defendant, and that therefore he was liable for what followed.

This point was argued at great length, many authorities and precedents being quoted in support of both views, but the discussion was suddenly closed, in consequence of the discovery by his Honor, that, for the purposes of this action, defendant had admitted at the outset, his responsibility, for the imprisonment. His Honor then instructed the jury that their simple duty was to assess the .damages sustained by the plaintiff, it was a monstrous thing that a man who was in faet committing a trespass should tell an ignorant constable to arrest the man who was only taking proper means to protect his own property ; that he .fcbould be obeyed, and that the injured party should have his feeling* outraged by being treated as a felon, and incarcerated in a common lock-up. By the evidence it appeared that the plaintiff had offered no violent or active resistance to the mad and thoroughly unjustifiable action 4>f the defendant; but the law would have protected him in any measure of resistance he might have, seen fit to make. In the interests of the community, the plaintiff had done well in bringing this case into Court, for the evidence bad disclosed a state of things intolerable in a civilized country. The question of damage was one which rested entirely with the jury; yet he might be pardoned for suggesting that the case was one for which a nominal amount would not suffice. They should mark their sense of the great wrong which the plaintiff had suffered by awarding exemplary damages —not absurd or vindictive damages—but sufficient to make the case remembered as a warning to others who might be inclined in future to act as the defendant had done. The jury then retired, and the next case was called as follows, a new jury being empannelled, — Tom Baldwin Buchanan v. Eoper. This case was precisely similar to the last, arming out of the same circumstauce. The evidence of the last case was repeated almost verbatim, and his Honor's charge to the jury was very similar. The jury in this case also retired. After a short time the jury in the case of J. S. Buchanan returned, having assessed the damages at .£75. Shortly afterwards the jury in the case of T. B. Buchanan entered, having assessed the damages at .£lO. The juries having been instructed by his Honor where to apply for payment under the new act, were discharged with the thanks of tho Queen and the Colony, and the Court adjourned.