A MASTERTON LAWSUIT.

Taranaki Daily News, 14 May 1917, Page 7

A MASTERTON LAWSUIT.

LITIGATION ARISING OUT OF DISPUTED PATERNITY. . The Full Court presided over by the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), Mr Justice Edwards, and Mr Justice Chapman, was asked to give its decision upon a motion for non-suit in a Masterton case on Thursday. This was the case of Thomas Jones, motor salesman, of Masterton, v. David William Foreman, farmer, o£ Miki Miki, Masterton, an action for alleged malicious prosecution. In opening the case, Mr Gray said that Foreman had denied strenuously the charge against him that he was the father of an illegitimate child' born to his housekeeper in his house. After exhaustive inquiries, he came to the conclusion that Jones was the father of the child. Accordingly, he laid a complaint against Jones, alleging that Jones, "being the father of _an illegitimate child, had failed to provide for its maintenance. The hearing of this case was fixed for December 15, but before that date the mother of the child laid a complaint against Foreman, and this case" was also set down for hearing on December IS. The respective parties duly came before the Courts and Foreman, through his solicitor, withdrew his complaint. It was stated that Foreman was satisfied that all the facts he wished to be lniown j Would be brought out in the hearing of the housekeeper's) information. After an eight days' hearing, the magistrate decided Foreman "to be the father of the child, and made an order for maintenance against Mm accordingly. Foreman immediately, gave notice of appeal, and this appeal was still"pending. Early this year Jones had issued a writ in the Supreme Court against Foreman, claiming damages. In the amended statement of claim ho alleged that Foreman had persecuted him falsely, maliciously, and without reasonable cause. Jones further claimed £42 legftl expenses and '£2ooo damages. The action was heard at Masterton by Mr Justice Chapman and a jury in March last. ,At the close of Jones' case (Foreman moved for a nonsuit on four grounds, two of' which were decided against him and two reserved. Tho jury found a- verdict for plaintiff for £750 general damages and £2l special damages. Mr Gray moved for a nonsuit on tlie grounds that the amended statement of claim disclosed no cause of action, and that there wag no evidence of damage such as was requisite to maintain the action; In the alternative, he moved! for judgment for defendant on the same grounds, or for 3. new triat on the grounds that tho verdict was against the j weight of evidence, and! that the damages were excessive. The' Court, sat all day, and their [Honors reserved their decision.