網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

Defence to agent received payment on behalf of the defendant of various action for

bills amounting in the aggregate to £215. malicious prosecu

5. The plaintiff did not enter in any of the books mentioned tion.

in the 3rd paragraph the fact of the receipt of the said moneys or any part of the same, nor did he forward to the defendant the said moneys or any part thereof.

6. On the 10th of May, 1877, the defendant wrote to the plaintiff inquiring if any of the bills mentioned in the 4th paragraph had yet been paid, and on the 12th of May, 1877, the plaintiff replied that they had not yet been paid, but that he hoped to receive them shortly.

7. On the 25th of May, 1877, the defendant discovered that the plaintiff had received on his behalf all the moneys mentioned in the 4th paragraph, and thereupon he gave the plaintiff into custody and preferred a charge of embezzlement in respect of the said sum of £215 against him, which are the grievances complained of in the 3rd and 4th paragraphs of the statement of claim.

8. The defendant denies that he acted therein maliciously, and says that he had reasonable and probable cause for the said imprisonment and the said prosecution.

9. The defendant does not admit the 6th paragraph of the statement of claim.

And by way of counter-claim the defendant says :Counter- 1. Between the - day of —, 1876, and the day of claim,

1877, the defendant entrusted certain of his goods of the value of £400 to the plaintiff, to be sold by the plaintiff for the

defendant, or to be returned to the defendant. Detinue. 2. The plaintiff, although frequently required so to do, has

never returned the said goods or accounted for the price thereof.

The defendant claims a return of the said goods or the price and value thereof.

Reply.

Reply. The plaintiff joins issue upon the defence, except so far as it admits any part of the statement of claim.

As to the counter-claim :

1. The plaintiff admits having received certain goods from the defendant, but denies that the terms upon which he received them are accurately stated in the counter-claim. The Reply to plaintiff received the goods for sale at an agricultural show at counterYork upon the joint account of the plaintiff and defendant, and action for as to such as might not be so sold, to return the same to certain malicious

prosecupremises at —, which premises were occupied by defendant tion. as tenant to the plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff sold some of the goods at York, and duly accounted to the defendant for the proceeds.

3. The plaintiff duly returned such of the goods as were unsold to the said premises, and thereby the terms of the bailment to the plaintiff of the said goods were satisfied.

4. If the plaintiff was bound to return the unsold goods to the defendant, the plaintiff says that the return of them to the said premises was a return to the defendant.

Joinder of Issue.
The defendant joins issue on the plaintiff's reply.

Action for Malicious Prosecution on a Charge of Misdemeanor

before Justices and at Assizes. 1. The plaintiff is a gentleman of independent means re- Another siding near R. The defendant is a farmer residing at

claim for

malicious near R. aforesaid.

prosecu

tion. 2. In the month of October, 1876, two persons named respectively M. and S. filed petitions for liquidation of their affairs by arrangement or composition, pursuant to the Bankruptcy Act, 1869, in the county court of Warwickshire holden at

3. The defendant was a creditor upon the estates of M. and S., and he was appointed a trustee jointly with another creditor of M. and S. in the said liquidation proceedings.

4. The plaintiff was a creditor of M. and S., and on the 24th of -, 1877, forwarded to the defendant and his cotrustee his proof of debt duly sworn against the estates of M. and S.

5. On the of February, 1877, the defendant laid an information before - Esq., a justice of the peace for the county of W., charging the plaintiff with a misdemeanor under the 14th section of the 32 & 33 Vict. c. 62, viz., with

Claim for having wilfully, and with intent to defraud, made a false claim malicious

against the estates in liquidation of the said M. and S. prosecution.

6. Upon such information the defendant procured the plaintiff to be summoned before the justices of the peace for the petty sessional division of R. aforesaid. The defendant appeared upon the hearing of the said information and summons and prosecuted the plaintiff in respect of the alleged offence. The plaintiff was committed by the said justices to take his trial at the ensuing W. assizes for the said alleged offence.

7. The said assizes were held on the 20th day of March, 1877, when the defendant caused a bill of indictment to be preferred against the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was put upon his trial for the alleged offence, but was acquitted.

8. The defendant laid the said information and procured the plaintiff to be summoned before the justices and committed for trial, and caused a bill of indictment to be preferred against the plaintiff as aforesaid falsely and maliciously and without reasonable or probable cause.

9. By reason thereof the plaintiff has been injured in his reputation and credit, and has suffered in mind and body, and has incurred expenses in defending himself and obtaining his acquittal.

The plaintiff claims £1000 damages.

Statement of Defence. 1. Save as hereinafter appears the defendant does not admit any of the allegations in the statement of claim.

2. By his proof in the matter of proceedings for liquidation by arrangement or composition with creditors instituted by H. M., sworn the 24th day of January, the plaintiff swore that the said H. M. was indebted to him in the sum of £400, whereas the said H. M. was then indebted to him in the sum of £300 only, and no more.

3. By the said proof the plaintiff claimed the sum of £100 as due from the said H. M. in respect of two bills of exchange for the sum of £50 each, drawn by one T. S., and accepted by the said H. M., and dated respectively the 9th of November, 1875. The said bills of exchange had respectively been cancelled when they became due and other bills of exchange for the like amounts had been given in renewal thereof, and such other Defence to bills had been in turn cancelled and renewed by two bills for claim for

malicious the sum of £50 each, dated the 9th of July, 1876, and drawn

prosecuby the said T. S. and accepted by the said H. M. respectively. tion. The said two last-mentioned bills had been accepted by the said H. M., and indorsed to the plaintiff in renewal of the said bills dated the 9th day of November, 1875, as aforesaid, and save as aforesaid there was no value or consideration for the accepting of the said bills or either of them by the said H. M., nor for their indorsement to the plaintiff.

4. The plaintiff by his said proof claimed against the estate of the said H. M. in respect of the said two bills of exchange dated the 9th of July, 1876, as well as in respect of the said two bills of exchange dated the 9th of November, 1875.

5. The plaintiff also proved against the estate of the said T. S. in respect of the same four bills of exchange dated the 9th of November, 1875, and the 9th of July, 1876. The said T. S. never received any value or consideration in respect of the said bills or any of them.

6. The defendant, as trustee of the estates of the said H. M. and of the said T. S., and with the assent and concurrence of his co-trustee, T. D. M., rejected the plaintiff's claim in respect of the said bills of exchange dated the 9th of November, 1875, and of certain other moneys which were not due to the plaintiff.

7. The defendant had reasonable and probable cause for believing, and did in fact believe, that the plaintiff in claiming against the estates of the said H. M. and T. S. respectively, in respect of the said bills of exchange as aforesaid, had committed an offence against the provisions of the Debtors Act, 1869, and the defendant further says that he acted under such belief and not otherwise in respect of the said proceedings.

8. The defendant further says that before the commence- Accord and ment of this action, it was agreed by and between the plaintiff satisfacand the defendant, that in consideration that the defendant would pay to the plaintiff the sum of £25, the plaintiff would accept the same in full accord and satisfaction of all rights of action which the plaintiff might have in respect of the matters set out in the statement of claim.

9. The defendant paid to the plaintiff the said sum of £25, and the plaintiff accepted the same in satisfaction as aforesaid.

tion.

Market.

Obstruction of a market, and for tolls.

Claim for an Obstruction of a Market and for Tolls. 1. The plaintiffs are the owners in fee of a certain market holden in the borough of P., in the county of C., on Thursdays and Saturdays in each week for the buying and selling, amongst other things, of flesh meat, together with tolls, stallages, and other perquisites and profits to that market appertaining; and all persons selling flesh meat on Thursdays and Saturdays within the said borough ought of right to sell the same within the said market, and not within any private shop, without payment to the plaintiffs of the said tolls, stallages, and other perquisites and profits of the said market.

2. The defendant carries on business and sells, amongst other things, flesh meat.

3. On Saturday, the 4th of December, 1875, and from that day on each Saturday until the commencement of this action, the defendant exposed for sale in his said shop within the limits of the said borough flesh meat, and refused to pay the plaintiffs any of the said tolls, stallages, or other perquisites and profits of the said market, and caused them to lose the said tolls, stallages, and other perquisites and profits of the said market, and prevented their enjoyment thereof, and thereby disturbed the plaintiffs’ said market.

The plaintiffs claim :-
(1.) £100, damages for the disturbance of the said market.
(2.) £1 for tolls.

Master and Servant.

See Negligence— Wrongful Dismissal.

« 上一頁繼續 »