SEQUEL TO THEFT CHARGE

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 761, 6 September 1929, Page 1

SEQUEL TO THEFT CHARGE

WIDOW CLAIMS £I,OOO ALLEGATIONS OF MALICE (From Our Own Correspondent) HAMILTON, Thursday. Tho case in which Bertha Prescott, widow, of Iluntly, is claiming £I,OOO as damages' from Albert Edward Powell, picture theatre proprietor, of Huntly, was cqntinued in the Supreme Court today before” Mr. Justice Ostler. Plaintiff, in her statement of claim, alleged that defendant had preferred a charge of .theft against her maliciously and without reason and probable cause. She was acquitted of the charge in the Police Court. Mr. Seymour and Mr. Harkness appeared for plaintiff and Mr. H. T. Gillies for defendant. Continuing her evidence late this afternoon, plaintiff, after relating how defendant had offered to buy her boarding house, said that when the agreement was made defendant compiled a detailed list of the furniture in tho house, and asked her to sign it, which sho did, without reading the document carefully. After the sale, quarrels became frequent between the boarders and defendant. Relations also became strained between defendant and plaintiff. When she sold a bed for £4, Powel laid a charge of theft against her, and produced a list of the furniture.

Cross-examined, plaintiff said Powell had asked tho constable to withdraw the theft charge, but lie had refused, saying it was too late. The sole reason for bringing the action was to clear her character. Witness denied that the boarders had been drinking and playing cards to excess. Constable T. Ingram, of Huntly, said defendant had laid an information to the effect that plaintiff had removed some of his property, including a bed. As far as witness knew, plaintiff’s boarding house was conducted in a satisfactory manner. William Henry McKenzie said he had resided in the b'oarding house for four years. The boarders were of a most respectable type.

Mr. Gillies moved for a non-suit. He said that for plaintiff to succeed she had to show that there was an absence of reasonable and probable grounds for defendant’s action and to provo .malice. His Honour reserved the non-suit point, remarking that it had been proved in the Police Court that the bed was the property of plaintiff. For tho defence, Mr. Gillies said that when plaintiff was leaving for England, defendant discovered that the furnishings of the house were being gradually removed. Defendant said that after he had complained—on legal advice—of the theft of the bed, it had been replaced in the house, and the purchase money returned to the buyer. His Honour asked the jury to decido whether defendant’s motive in instituting proceedings was malicious, and whether there had been reasonable grounds for laying the information. In answer to the issues put by the judge, the jury held that there had been malice, and that defendant had not honestly believed plaintiff guilty of theft. Damages were assessed at £350. Judgment was reserved pending legal argument.