Claim for Damages.

Manawatu Herald, 24 May 1902, Page 2

Claim for Damages.

ALLEGED MALICIOUS PROSE CU'TION.

Two claims for £5Ol each were brought against George Coley in the Wellington Supreme Court on Thursday by Hans and Emma Andriesoa respectively. Mr Wilford appeared for the claimants, and Mr Skerrett for the defendant. The claimants were a Foxton: fisherman and his wife; the defendant was a flax miller at the same town. The claims were made on the ground ot malicious prosecution. The following jury was empanelled to try the cases, which were taken together by consent of counsel: — Hardie Shaw, Walter Meldrum, Hugh Blair, Ernest George Chandler, William Denton, Thomas Leydon, George Wiltshire, Frederick William Wallace, Thomas Bowler, Henry Charles, George Ross, Richard Skelholf. Counsel for the claimants told the jurv that on the 10th March in this year a man named Bushett, a friend of the Andriesons, was at their house, and while Bushett was there a daughter of the defendant Coley came to the house and offered to sell chaff and oats. As a result of the offer a bargain was made to deliver to Bushett five bags of chaff and two of oats. These were delivered by a man named Mason, who was in the employ of Coley. One pound was paid down for the oats and chaff, and subsequently another 6s. This was paid by Andrieson on behalf of Bushett, and a receipt was given by Coley’s daughter. There had been previous dealings between the parties. Subsequently Coley came home and questioned his man Mason as to where certain bags of oats were. Mason told | him they had been delivered to Andrie- i son, whereupon Coley got in a passion [ '■ ' .he would “ put the —-r in 1 »J

i ' luiniiiiirsaawawwWßMMaMMMMMW ->- | gaol.” Cohiy summoned the police, but he evidently changed his mind as | to Andrieson, for he got Mason pat in ! durance. Mason was there for a night. } Coley next—without making any pra- , i hminary complaint to the Andriesons I —got a search warrant and searched i their premises. Andrieson produced i the receipts for £i 6s signed by Coley s • daughter. Coley became further ins censed, refused to look at the receipts, | and said he “ would spend' £soo over j the thing.” Subsequently he sent | his sons and a policeman to Andnej sons’ to remove the fodder. Attar this was done Coley went to a Justice of I the Peace and swore an information [that Mr and Mrs Andrieson had:re*; [ ceived the goods knowing them to M . stolen. In the interval the case against ■ Mason came on, but Coley offered no evidence. The .case of theft against Andrieson was withdrawn by Coley, but he offered no expression of .regret nor an apology. After the case was withdrawn a sum of 17s was offered to Andrieson by Coley’s solicitor, but the money was declined by Andrieson. , The defence of the case was that the surroundings of the transaction j. ■ were such as to fully justify Coley’s actions in the matter; also that the case against Andrieson was withdrawn with the consent of the aggrieved patties. The witnesses were cross-ex-amined by Mr Skerrett with a view to proving that the corn and chaff were . sold by Mrs Coley, through her daughter, against the will of Coley, and also without his knowledge. The price paid by Coley for the oats was 2s rod par; bushel c.i.f. at Foxton, and it was urged by the defence that the price at which the small 'quantity was sold to complainants or Bushett (by the agency of a twelve-year-old child) was presumptive evidence to the purchasers that the transaction was an unjustifiable one, not to use a harsher term. It was also contended for -the defence . . that the doors of the barn in which the oats and chaff were stored had been broken in so that the goods could be got out.—Times. ■ The witnesses having been examined the jury retired arid having decided returned into Court with a verdict of £3O for the plaintiff Hans Andreson, and £25 for his wife, with costs as on ia £55 verdict and fifteen guineas for the second day’s trial. ■