Action Against The Wakefield Guardians For Malicious Prosecution

Mr. Forbes, Q.C., and Mr. Beevor represented the plaintiff, Hubert Hobson, a coal miner, residing at Brookroyd, near Birstall; Mr. Fenwick and Mr. C. M. Atkinson appeared for the defendants, the Guardians of the Wakefield Union, and Mr. John Kershaw, a relieving officer in their service.

In opening the case, Mr. Forbes said the plaintiff came before them to ask for compensation for a prosecution which was instituted against him by the defendants without reasonable and probable cause, and maliciously, in the sense of the word that it was recklessly done. The plaintiff had been married to his present wife for about twelve years, and it unfortunately happened that they had not had a very happy married life.

The plaintiff was employed for some years at Denaby Main Colliery, near Doncaster, and afterwards at the Carlton Main Colliery, near Barnsley. In December, 1882, he left the Carlton Main Colliery and went to work at a colliery at Brookroyd, where he had obtained better wages. He took a house at that place, and removed his furniture there. Accompanied by his wife, three children, and two apprentices, he left Birstall to proceed to Brookroyd; but at Wakefield his wife refused to go with him, and said she would prefer to go to her father, who lived at Altofts, near Wakefield. The plaintiff took a railway ticket for her to Normanton, and she left him, taking with her the youngest child.

The plaintiff then went on to Brookroyd with two of his children and his apprentices. He had no communication with his wife until the month of February following. About eight o’clock on the night of the 20th February a police-constable came to his house armed with a warrant for his immediate apprehension, upon a charge that he was a rogue and vagabond. He was taken from his house to the gaol at Wakefield, and on the following day he was brought before the magistrates. Mr. Kershaw, the relieving officer, then appeared and asked for a remand, and the plaintiff was sent back to prison. Upon the 23rd he was again brought before the magistrates, and Mr. Kershaw then said that the plaintiff’s wife did not want to live with him, and asked for an order for separation on her behalf—an order which the magistrates could not give. He (Kershaw) admitted that he had no evidence that the plaintiff was a rogue and a vagabond, and the case was dismissed.

What appeared to have taken place was this—the wife was not on good terms with her husband when they separated, but it was a voluntary separation. She had stayed with her father until the 24th January, and then she seemed to have gone before the Guardians of the Wakefield Union. She seemed then to have stated that she was destitute, that her husband had deserted her, and she asked for relief. The Guardians gave her relief, and without any inquiry made an order that her husband should be apprehended. A warrant was obtained, and the plaintiff was arrested. He (Mr. Forbes) thought the jury would come to the conclusion that this was a most reckless proceeding, and most unjustifiable.

In their statement of defence the defendants said that what was done was not done maliciously, but with reasonable and probable cause; that what they did was on the information of the plaintiff’s own wife; that they acted on the information bona fide and in good faith, and they did not admit that any damage had been sustained.

The plaintiff was called, and in the course of his examination he stated that his wife had left him on several previous occasions, and he had got a woman named Mary Haigh to keep house for him. He got the same woman to keep his house at Brookroyd.

In cross-examination, he denied that he had told his wife that he was going to live with Mary Haigh, or another woman. He had not allowed his wife anything for the support of herself and the child after she left him.

At the conclusion of the case for the plaintiff, Mr. Fenwick submitted that his learned friend had failed to make out his case. His Lordship (addressing Mr. Forbes) asked him how far it had been proved that the Guardians had acted without reasonable and probable cause. “The plaintiff’s wife,” he added, “goes before the Guardians, and had represented—rightly or wrongly—that she had been deserted by her husband, and they did what was generally done in such cases—gave her relief, and ordered a warrant to be taken out for the arrest of the husband.”

Mr. Forbes submitted that the Guardians had acted recklessly. They ought not to have acted upon the simple, uncorroborated statement of the wife.

Mr. Fenwick asked his Lordship whether there was sufficient evidence of malice to go to the jury. His Lordship replied that if he had to decide the question he should say no; but as Mr. Forbes seemed to prefer that the case should go to the jury, he would not stop it.

Mr. Fenwick then addressed the jury, and called John Kershaw, the relieving officer, who gave evidence as to the statement made by the plaintiff’s wife to him, and afterwards to the Guardians.

His Lordship, in charging the jury, said his opinion was that there was reasonable and probable cause for the course adopted by the defendants, and he asked them to express their opinion upon that point. He asked them also to say whether they thought that there was any malicious feeling whatsoever on the part of the Guardians or of Mr. Kershaw in taking the steps they did.

The jury gave a verdict for the defendants.

His Lordship remarked that in this sort of action very persistent in one would be safe in the discharge of his duty. The action never ought to have been brought.