SUPREME COURT CASE

Otago Witness, Issue 2815, 26 February 1908, Page 15

SUPREME COURT CASE

BREWER v. PUBLICAN.

AUCKLAND, February 19. In the ease of Patrick Quinlan v. John George Swan and others heard before Mr Justice Detmiston ai the civil sitting of the Auckland Supreme Court in November last the wriWen judgment of his Honor was received to-day and read to the parties interested. In the course of hi 6 judgment his Honor sa.id t'na-t plaintiff was an hotelkeeper in Auckland and the defendants ttftw brewers carrying on business in Wan-R-anui. The transactions commenced by defendants in May, 1906. advancing the plaintiff £100, the consideration being the getting of a shore of his trade. Plaintiff got into arrears with his payments, both in meeting bills and on current account. In September he had met one of the defendants in Auckland and had a settlement, | giving promisory notes for the balance. These notes wore dishonoured on .January 31, 1907. A summons in the Magistrate's Court had been issued in respect of one such note for £37. On that date plaintiff wrot,* to the defendants on the subject of his financial position with them, and eno'osed two cheques (one post dated) in settlement of the summons. The plaintiff alleged and the defendant denied that this was accepted by the defendants in settlement of the judgment. The defendants subsequently obtained judgment on the note, and later a warrant of distress was issued, under which a bailiff entered on the licensed premises of fche plaintiff. The pldinriff s>uod the defendants for damages, but beine; advised that the judgment waa a bar to the action he discontinued, and obtainod an «x pa.rte order setting aside the judgment, and all subsequent proceedings, and then brought this action. At the close of plaintiff's case counsel for defendants a»ked for a. non-suit on several ground*. His Honor intimated that in his opinion there was no evidence to go to j the ju.rv on the question of malice. The I cause of the action alleged by the plaintiff wius t.hat the defendants wrongfully, maliciously, and i\ ithout a, reasonable and probable cau«<e caused a distress warrant to ! be i«wuerl and executed against the goods ci. (he plaintiff. His Honor, in a lengthy review of the case, said that there wp. * no ca«e to go to the jury on the grounds o Her of want of reasonab'e and probable eiuse or of ma-lice. He had therefore decided to grant a non-suit.