[malicious prosecution - false imprisonment - damages, assessment of]

Taylor v. Stuart

Supreme Court of New South Wales

Burton J., 21 September 1837

Source: Sydney Herald, 25 September 1837[1]

Taylor v Stuart - This was an action for false imprisonment, damages laid at £500.  The defendant, a grocer residing in George-street, employed the plaintiff as a clerk.  When he had been a few months in the employ, the plaintiff and defendant agreed to part, the defendant paid the plaintiff, £10 for a quarter's salary which the plaintiff accepted; a few minutes afterwards the defendant said that he had made a mistake, that instead of £40 a year, the plaintiff was only entitled to £30 a year, and requested him to return the £2 10., which he refused to do, upon which the defendant called a constable and desired him to take the defendant in charge, which he refused to do, unless the defendant would specifically state it was for felony, when the defendant charged the plaintiff with felony and he was taken to the watch-house.  When the case came before the Police, Stuart deposed to giving Taylor the money by mistake, upon which Colonel Wilson immediately discharged Taylor from custody.  The defendant put in a plea of justification, and to support it, called two witnesses, one of whom proved that he was present, when Stuart made a calculation of the wages due to Taylor, and laid the money on the counter, which Taylor picked up, and that about five minutes afterwards Mr. Stuart looked at the calculation and said he had made a mistake, and requested Taylor to hand back the surplus sum which he refused.  The second witness deposed that he was in Mr. Stuart's employ; and that a few days after Taylor joined the employ, he told him that Mr. Stuart had offered him £30 a year; but that he was determined he would not stop under £40 a year; but would leave at the end of the month.  Verdict for the plaintiff, damages £50.  His Honor said he was requested by the Assessors to say, that they would have given much heavier damages, had there been any evidence to shew that the defendant was a wealthy man.

Notes

[1] See also Australian, 22 September 1837; Sydney Gazette, 23 September 1837.