SUPEEME COURT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XL, Issue 205, 21 August 1876, Page 2

SUPEEME COURT.

[Before his Honor Mr Justice Gillies.] The sittings of the Supreme Court commenced this inornimi, when the nitnej of the followi g Grand Jurors were called:— Messrs E J. O'CoDor, C. Saxton, J. Oldham, T Oawthron, R. L-vien, W. S Mortimer, W. M. Stantoo, A. S. Collins, W. Woolley, W. H Turn r, P.Don >ld, J. B»roico^t ( J Symons' J. Watkins, E Everett, R. M'Bie, J. Gully, G. Talbot, J. Scott, J. Sc'.anderß. His Honor said there were no bills to lay before them, and unless they had any presentment to mane it would not be nccegsary to swear them in. Af ler consultiug together Mr Barnicoatstited ihat they did not wish to make any presentment, and his Honor thereupon discharged them, Btating that be w«s sorry th-it they had had the trouble of being brought together. Malicious PfiosEcuTioif. Fowler v. Macarthur and another. «T T !lr llnwi °g special jury was sworn in;— W. Wells (foreman;, W S. Mortimer, A J Gundry, W. M. St^nton, T. Foy, It Levieo' H. Buckeridge, G. Hodgson, M. Webster! J I). Brown, W. Wright, and T. Cawthron. Mr Joynt, with him Mr Pitt, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Conolly, with him Mr Fell, for the defendants. The plaintiff ehimei £5000 damages for malicious prosecution, and £1000 special damages for loaaea incurred by his compulsory abence from his business. We do not intend giving the evidence in this case, which is one of no local interest whatever, bat the grounds of the ait on may be ascertained from the address of the leading counsel for the plaintiff in opening his case. Mr Jo>nt said that the present action was br ught by William Longley Fowler a. runholder in the Amuri, against two brothers named Macarthur, who were his Immediate neighbor.^ and were also runholders 'Jhe prosecution which formed the subject mat- > ter of the action originated in February, 1875, when plaintiff was arrested by a rain named John Corbett, who had for some time previously redd.d in a hut close to plaintiff's house as a roundary shepherd, and had been on terms of close intimacy with the plaintiff and his family. One day an altercation »roae between tnem in reference to a sheep taken from plaintiffs yard. Corbett claimed it and go did Fowler, and ultimately the latter tied the sheep's leys, took it out of the yard, and cat rs bead off. Corbett then change/ his apparent, and assumed his real character, and called on a bystander in the Queen'a name to assist him in arresting plaintiff on a charae of cheep stealing. He took charge of the

sheep's head, ana took the plaintiff to the defendant's residence, whence he was removed | and given in charge of Mr Schroder, the | constable. J&'or twelve or thirteen days Fowler was kept in prison, and ultimately wa i committed by two Jmti^es of the Pe j ce to take his trial for sheep-stealing. The trial [ took place in tho Supreme Court, at Christchurch, and he was acquitted. He (Mr Joynt) would not at that time deal with the question of damages. It was lor him to prove the prosecution, and its termination in favor of the plaintiff; it would also bs necessary for him to prove the connection between the defendants and Corbett who nnde the arrest, and who, iv poiut of fact, had been brought down from Melbourne tor the express purpose of beiog set down near Fowler's house as the defendant's servant and Fowler'a friend, while he was reporting his every movement to hia master. It would he further necessary for him to prove some kind of malice. In all probability they would hear a great detl during the trial regarding what constituted " malice," which might bave its existence , either in face or in thought. The former was, oi of the strongest kind, but malice in law might be, and was, implied in i>uch a case as the present if there was sufficient proof to show that the defendants had no reasonable grounds forinsfrtuthg proceedings against the plaintiff. Want of reasonable o*use, in fact, underlay the whole proceedings now being taken, and it would be for him to satisfy the jury that sufficient ciuss had not exis.ed. That was the conclusion at which they would have to arrive after the facts had beeu proved. All he could do for the purpose of showing that defendI ants had no reasonable grounds for the course | they had adopted was to lay before them the whole of the circumstances, irom which it would be easily gathered whether or not the defendants had such reasonable grounds for proceeding as would have moved any moderately cautious man. If there were reasonable grounds, there was an end of the action, but if not the jury must conclude that there hud bee a malice such as was implied in law. But if, auperadded to this, he could satisfy them that there hid been malice in fact, that the defendarts had been actuated by a deairo to injure the plaintiff, such a consideration must weigh very strongly with them in awarding damages. The witnesses who had been put into the box for the plaintiff up to the tiaie of our going to press were Mr Malet, the Registrar of the Supreme Court in Curistchtirch, Mr Schroder, and the plaintiff himself, who was subjected to a severe cross-examination at the hands of Mr Conolly.