ALLEGED MALICIOUS PROSECUTION.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXIX, Issue 3768, 20 June 1907, Page 2

ALLEGED MALICIOUS PROSECUTION.

Watt v. Rae-Howard. At the Supreme Court, Palmerston N., on Monday, before Mr Justice Cooper, Edward Watt, of Palmerston, Commission Agent, sued P. H. Rae-Howard, of Foxton, Commission Agent, for ,£250 damages, on the ground that the defendant had on the 9th May last, maliciously and without reasonable and proper cause, laid an information against plaintiff, charging him with having obtained £2 from the defendant with intent to defraud by a false pretence. Mr W. H. McLean appeared for plaintiff, and R. Moore (Foxton), for defendant. Mr McLean, in opening the case for the defendant, said the claim arose out of circumstances which had taken place at Foxton, on 9th May. On that date plaintiff went to defendant’s office, and asked him for the loan of £2 to obtain a horse and trap to drive a prospective buyer, named Wardell, to inspect the Oroua Downs estate. Defendant gave plaintiff a cheque, which he cashed, and plaintiff then obtained a horse and trap from Mr George Coley, and paid him a pound. He subsequently found that defendant had interviewed Wardell himself, and that Wardell, refusing to go to Hiraatangi to inspect the property, defendant accused plaintiff of having obtained the money from defendant by false pretences, whereupon plaintiff challenged him to fight. Defendant then, without proper cause, laid an information against plaintiff for obtaining money by fraud, and the information was heard at Foxton on the 13th May and dismissed. Counsel submitted that these facts indicated a malicious intent on the defendant’s part, and showed that defendant had no reasonable or probable cause for taking criminal proceedings. Plaintiff gave evidence to this effect, and also as to damage he had suffered in his business connection by the publication of the proceedings. Cross-examined.— Hadn’t assured defendant when obtaining the money that Wardell had arranged with him to go to Himitangi. Didn’t remember where he cashed the cheque, but admitted it might have been at Hall’s Hotel. Could not remember whether he had paid his board out of it ; Would not deny' that he might have done; board might have been 16s. Did not remember whether he purchased drinks out of the money. Had made a bet of £ 1 with George Coley, but only as a joke. The pound paid to Coley was intended for the trap. Coley might have taken it in payment of the bet. He hadn’t repaid the £2 to defendant because defendant accused him of obtaining it by fraud. It was not true that he challenged defendant to fight or told him to go to merely

because defendant asked him for repayment of money.

Mr Moore submitted that the defendant’s case rested on a denial of the allegation of malice in laying the information against the plaintiff, and an assertion that the defendant had had good and sufficient cause for taking criminal proeedings against plaintiff in the Magistrate’s Court. When plaintiff obtained £2 from defendant plaintiff said Warded had arranged to drive out and inspect the property. Having got the money, plaintiff was very dilatory in making arrangements to go, and the defendant accordingly found it necessary to interview Warded himself, and was then told by Wadell that no such arrangement had been made. The defendant then consulted his solicitor and , laid an information for obtaining money by false pretences. For the defence, George Coley gave evidence that on the day in question Watt arranged with him for a vehicle, and at the same time made a bet of £1 with him. Watt lost the bet, and when he saw him again shortly afterwards he paid witness £l. Defendant questioned Warded and Watt about the supposed inspection of property, and Warded denied any knowledge of the affair. Defendant demanded the return of his money from Watt, and the latter first challenged him to fight, and then told him to go to Defendant stated in evidence that when Watt obtained the £2 from him, he assured defendant Warded had arranged to inspect Oroua Downs estate, and he wanted the money to get a conveyance. He subsequently found that Warded had made no enquiries about the property, and knew nothing of the visit of inspection. He detailed his interview with Watt. Thos. Cook gave evidence corroborating that of George Coley. After a lengthy summing up the Judge said the plaintiff had not established the onus which rests upon him in such cases, and he entered a nonsuit with costs,