In reply, Mr. Snyder said that the Court operated under the of Columbia Code and in coming into the Court as would have to have attained jority under that cole, which was 21 years of age.
His Honour held that the petition] should the amended and appointed Mr. Fleming to bring the suit und his name for his client.
Mr. H, A. Keays, an employee the China Finance Corporation w: then called and said that he had entered the office of the compan after Naidis had come there March 16, He was told by Grant Mark that Naidis would not tell the whereabout of a motorcycle, object of the present litigant Shortly after Keays arrived, Mark] left and told him to keep Nai ight. After Mark left the told witness that he was going to, charge Mark $10 or $20 for every hour he was detained in the office Witness told Naidis he was bretts young to be starting out as he was. He also said that he never touched Naidis, nor did he threaten hiv. Had Naidis wished he could have] walked out of the office, but witness would have had him shadowed unt the warrant of arrest could be served.
On cross-examination witness admitted that some cakes were sent] into the wom, These were sent*te personally by the stenographer and were handed over to Naidie eat. The stenographer had never Before sent in cakes to him, nor had she done so afterward. Witness remained with Naidis until the police came and arrested him. Witness further denied that he had threaten. ed to "knock Naidis's head off" and] had not touched him in any way He said that he was six feet three finches tall and weighed 190 pounds, Case Adjourned The next witness was T. C. Leach, manager of the Taylor Garage, who was asked as to whether he had ever been si d in a similar manner in the British Court by Naidis. His evidence was not allowed, as the Court held that the case would have to be tried in the U. S. Court and judgment passed before it would be valid calla to give evidence of 2, very After two more witnesses were
minor nature, counsel commenced their arguments, Tu summing up his Honour said] [that plaintiff alleged that he went to see defendant on March 16 at! the latter's request. Mark took hold Jof him and wanted to know where certain motor cycle was—evidence showing that several, -including, tiffs brother, had" been. con.
ied in pawning it. Plaintiff The Judges, from left to claimed he hud been abused and sworn at. He was locked up for several hours in defendant's office in custody of Mr. Keyes, while defendant secured a warrant and brought detectives. He was then detained over night in the police tation, taken to the Mixed Court, remanded and discharged on March On March 18 he was notified that his services were no longer required, Plaintif? argued imprisonment without probable cause, defendant with probable cause, The law, Judge Purdy said, relieved police or civi ans of civil consequences, sheld they instigate an arrest if a probable cause could be shown. If such here, plaintif€ could have no ewuse for action.
His Honour could not see, ina ww of the evidence, that' Marke had any evidence on which he could charge plaintiff with embezzlement, while Naidis exercised his right if
leyele was, refused to tell where the motor Judge Purdy then ruled that de: fendant had acted without probable feause and said that he must rule la favour of plaintiff.
The next point to be considerait was the amount of damages, plaintitt claiming $4,000 on four counts, His Honour intimated that he was not at all impressed with the attitude of plainti and that he had brought the situation on himself. He believed that plaintiff had enjoyed the dignity of sitting back and refusing: to say where the vehicle was, and to a greater degree enjoyed' the dignity of threatening suit, if he were arrested. Judge Purdy then made it clear that he was not in sympathy with a person who acted that way, even though he mi had some cause for agmra\ The letter announcing plainti missal was cooked up" by hima id hig friend for whom he worked it was made of whole eloth—hé being discharged before he came ty court, but after which plaintiff remained with the firm for. thres months until for business reasons he was let out. To plaintiff: "I ink that you' went to hin® and asked him to discharge you so that you could sue for damages. T can: not but wonder if you went on put; pose to bait Marks."
His Honour, concluding, granted plaintif® G.$50' for' counsel's fees, the Mixed Court, G850. because he was detained in the office and G.$100 because he spent one night in gaol.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.