Devon Lent Assize: Malicious Prosecution: GREENHILL v. PEARCE: this was an action for malicious prosecution, Mr. Coleridge, Q.C. and Mr. Lopes were counsel for the plaintiff, instructed by Mr. E. W. Hooper. And Mr. Sergeant Kinglake was counsel for the defendant (attorney, Mr. Floud), the pleadings being opened by Mr. Lopes. Mr. Coleridge stated the case. It appeared the plaintiff, Mr. Alfred Greenhill, was a gentleman of independent means, living in the parsonage house at Honiton Clist and the defendant, Mr. Francis Drake Pearce was a farmer, also living at Honiton Clist. The defendant had caused the plaintiff to be summoned for committing a felony. The plaintiff appeared before the magistrates and the case was dismissed. The present action was brought to recover damages for this offence. The learned counsel said that according to his instructions this was a case of a provoked malicious prosecution, and one of the grossest it had ever been his lot to bring before a jury. The facts of the case were as follows: The defendant occupied a close called Cross Park, which was separated by a hedge from a field called Trapnell, in the occupation of the plaintiff. There was a gate between the two fields, and as it was broken, the plaintiff put two hurdles against it to fence it. One of those hurdles was an iron one belonging to the plaintiff, the other was a wooden one belonging to the defendant, and which was taken out of the defendant’s field. This was done on the 18th November. A day or two after, Mr. Greenhill, being in his field and seeing that some cattle had broken through a hedge into his field, he, with the assistance of defendant’s servants drove the cattle out, and to stop the gap which had been made the plaintiff removed the two hurdles from the gate and put them against the gap — one of those hurdles was the defendant’s. He met the defendant after and told him what he had done. Defendant made no remark there on and the matter passed. In October 1865, Mr. Greenhill had bought a house and nine acres of land from Miss Pinsent in Honiton Clist, and the house and land were occupied by the defendant. Miss Pinsent gave the defendant regular notice that he was to regard the plaintiff as his future landlord. The defendant appeared to have taken offence at the plaintiff having exercised his right as an Englishman to purchase the property. However, on the 30th December the plaintiff went to survey the estate, and gave the defendant notice that he was the landlord. On 5th January the plaintiff saw the defendant at Exeter, and the defendant paid him the rent for the land but said that he considered Miss Pinsent to be still landlady of the house. About this time a person named Rutter, the defendant’s nephew, was going about saying something derogatory of the character of Mr. Greenhill, and the plaintiff cautioned him not to say anything about him, and a writ was issued against him, but the learned counsel did not know whether the case was brought for trial or not. After this, the defendant asked a policeman to apprehend the plaintiff for stealing the hurdle referred to above. The officer discreetly declined. The defendant, not to be baulked, obtained a summons for the plaintiff from the Woodbury magistrates. …There was a further point to the case. The plaintiff was repairing his house at Honiton Clist. The snow was on the ground, and his pony was in the field. A person there, thinking the pony was hungry, pulled out a couple of handfuls of hay from the defendant’s rick, and gave it to the pony. The hay was worth 2d, or say 6d, giving him a silver coin that was surely all the hay was worth, and, in fact the plaintiff did not know that the hay had been given to the pony at all. The defendant, however, went to Mr. Garrett, magistrate, laid an information against the plaintiff for stealing hay, and asked for a summons against the plaintiff. Mr. Garrett, after cautioning the defendant to be very careful what he was about, granted the summons. The two great cases — of the hurdle and the hay — came on for trial at the Woodbury Session. … … (continues) … … Cross-examined by Mr. Coleridge: At that time the defendant was cool: He had just threatened to kick the plaintiff out of his yard. A: Is that your way of showing affection? Witness did not reply. He did not deny that he had charged his brother with taking the hurdle about the 19th Nov. He said to the magistrates that it was about a week after, that he found that Mr. Greenhill had the hurdle. It might have been two or three days after hearing it, that he went to Mr. Greenhill about the hurdle. Did not know for certain that Miss Pinsent had sold her property to Mr. Greenhill until Mr. Greenhill came to him for rent. He had received a notice of it from Miss Pinsent. He did not know that it was on the 16th Nov. but it was some time before they called for the rent on Jan. 3rd. Mr. Greenhill threatened to lock up the gates, which he (witness) called putting in a distress. Mr. Greenhill had brought the witness the notice which was signed by Miss Pinsent, and he wrote to her to ask her if it was her real signature for he doubted it. He also warned her to be cautious as to whom she dealt with. He did not know who he thought had forged the name of Miss Pinsent also he could not tell against whom he was warning Miss Pinsent. He thought it might be against Mr. Greenhill, at last he said it was against Mr. Greenhill. … … (continues) … The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff: Damages £10.
Transcribed in whole or part from scanned originals: Presented with or without modified text and punctuation. For absolute accuracy refer to the original newspapers. Source: The British Newspaper Archive.
Referenced
GRO0677 Hennock: Mary Speare Pinsent: 1794 – 1882