Deficiency In Stock At A King's-Cross Bookstall. (Bef ore Vic LorD CnME JusrCE and a Special Jury.) This was an action claiming damages for alleged false imprisomment and malicious prosecution. Mr. St. John Hutehinson appeared for the plaintiff: Mr. Clavell Salter, 3K.C., and Mr. Daldy appeared for the defendants. It appeared from the evidence that the plaintiff had been employed by the defendants as an assistant bookstall clerk in a large bookstall in King's-cross Station, at a wage of 22s. a week. He had been in their employment for nine years. The manager of the boolUstall was a Mr. Cosgrave, and there were five or six persons in all employed at tho stall. In July, 1911, there was a small deflciency when the stock was taken at the stall, but not such as to cause any suSpicion of dishonesty in so large a cash busi- ness. In that month the plaintiff bought a business at Staines for selling teas, mineral waters, tobacco, newspapers and magazines, &e. He agreed to pay ?20 down for the business and ?1 a. week for four years. In the conduct of the business he was assisted by the woman who shortly afterwards became his wife. The plaintiff then went to live at Staines, going to town every day for his work at the book- stall. The plaintiff did not tell his employers any- thing about his purchase of the business. although he knew tbat in carrying it on he was breaking one of the unwritten rules of the firm. And he did not tell them that he ha4i married, or that, he had changed his address. In January, 1912, when the stock was taken at the King's-cross bookstall, it was found that there was a deficiency of ?126 odd. In February, 1912, there was another stock-taking, and it was ascertained that. the deficiency had increased to ?154. And Mr. Cosgrave said that if he had not-put ?15 of his own money into the till the deficiency would have been larger. On April 16 the deficency was found to be ?148, and Mr. Cosgrave, who had been unable to ascertain where the leakage was, was transferred to Darlmigton. No suggestion was made then or afterwards by any one against Mr. Cosgrave's honesty. A Mfr. Gee then became the manager of the stall. On May 18 there was another stock- taking, when it was found that there was still a deficiency of ?148. A man who was employed by the defendants at another bookstall, and who was greatly concerned at what had happened to M1r. Cosgrave, set to work to make inquiries as to the leakage, and he discovered that the plaintiff was carrying on a business at Staines. A 'Mr. Davey then, on the instructions of the defendants, went to the house at Staines OD a number of occasions, had tea, talked with the plaintiffs wife, and bought magazines. EventuaUy he asked for a book called " Traffic" and another named " Hillary." Air. Davey's account was that Mirs. Walters said, " My husband brings the books down at night." Mrs. Walters's account was that she said that her husband would get the book. The result was that the plaintiff brought a copy of " Traffic " home with him from the bookstall at King's-cross-one of 20 copies that had been speciallv marked. This occurred on Saturday, June 15. On Tuesday, the 18th, Mr. Davey called at Staines and was handed the book and paid for it. Mrs. Walters said that she omitted to tell her husband that the book had been sold, as she was preoccupied by the arrival of her sister from America. On June 19 the plaintiff went to his work as usual. In the middle of the day he was sent with a letter to Mr. Kimpton,. the manager of the defendants' stationery departuaent. In answer to questions by Mr. Kimpton he said that he was living at Eennington and that he was not married. Both statements were untrue to his knowledge. His explanation was that he knew the firm did not hke their employees carrying on other businesses, and that they did not encourage marriage by employees at 22s. a week. Mr. Kimpton next asked him about the business at,Staines, which the plaintiff then acknowledged. Mr. Kimpton's account of his next question was that he said, " Have you taken any ' stock ' from the bookstall at King's-cross ?" and that the plaintiff saiid "'No." Mr. Kimpton then said, " Think a little," and the plaintiff then said, "I have taken a copy of 'Traffic."' Asked whether he had paid for it, the plaintiff replied that he had not, but that he intended to do so when the gentleman who ordered it had paid for it. The plaintiff's .account of the conversation was sub- stantially the same, and it was agreed that nothing had been said at the bookstall by the plaintiff as to his taking away the book. Mr. Kimpton then tele- phoned to Mr. Hornby, a partner in the defendant firm, and went with Mr. Walters to the offiee in the Strand. According to Mr. Hornby's Zvideri^e, --Mr. Walters gave no explanation when asked to do so. Mr. Hornby then gave the plaintiff into custody, and he was taken by a pollee officer in plain clothes to Bow-street, where he was charged with the theft of the book. At 10 p.m. he was released on the recog- nizance of his wife. He was prosecuted by the de- fendants and committed for trial to the.Countyof London Sessions, where he was acquitted. The defendants in the action made no charge of any kind azainst the plaintiff's honesty. At the conclusion of the evidence Mr. ST. JOnN Hu'rcnn'soN, in answer to the LonD CnSF JusIcIE. submitted that as the felony with which the plaintiff was charged-namely, the stealing of the book-was shown not to bave taken place, there was no felony committed, and that therefore there was no answer to the action for false imprisonment. 3Ir. CLAVELT, SA.LTMn submitted that as far as the action for false imprisonxment .was, concerned the defendants 'had to prove (1) that a series of thefts of money or stocek had in fact taken place at the bookstaill and (2) that the defendants in giving the plaintiff into custody had reasonable and probable cause to suspect the plaintiff of that series of thefts. The LOn Cm1EF JuSurCE said that this point might be good, but it was, he thought, quite novel. Mr. CLAVELT. SALTM said, that Mr. Hornby's. evidence was that in giving the plaintiff into custody he did so on a suspicion of his having committed all the thefts clhninating in the theft of the book. The question what, the plaintiff was eventually charged with could only be material as evidence of what the suspicion was upon which the plaintiff was given into custody. Otherwise it was immaterial: that was evident from the fact that there might be a case where no prosecution followed the arrest, yet the action for false imprisonment would still lie. As to the action for malicious prosecution, where the burden of proof lay on the plaintiff, Mr. Clavell Salter submitted that tbere was no evidence of malice or of absence of reasonable and probable cause. The only suggested evidence of malice was that further inquiries ought to have been mnade. Ho cited Brown v Hawkes ([l891] 2 Q.B., 718); Abrath v. 'North- Eastern Railway Company (52 L.J., Q.B., 620, 11 App.. Cas., 24); and Beckwith v. Philby (6 B. and C., 35). Mr. ST. JORN HUrcMNsoN submitted that the action for false imprisonment mnust succeed unless it could be shown that the felony upon which the plaintiff was given into custody had in fact taken place. That alleged felony *as the stealing-of the book. and it was admitted that the taking awav of tho book from the bookstall was no larceny. The solo conversation between Mr. Hornby, Mr. Rimpton, and the plaintiff on June 19 was about the book. Further, the justification 'now seb up hid not been pleaded. Mr. HPTcn=sow cited King and Another v. the Metropolitan District Railway Company (72 J.P. 294). THE QuES4oTIs To THo ItRy. The LonD CnrEr JYusrxo, said that he would leave the usual questions to the jury as to the action for malicious prosecution, and ho would leave a question as to Mr. Clavell Salter's point on the action for falso imprisonment. Counsel then addressed the Jury, and his lowsElp gummed up. He left these questions to the jury, which they answered as follows:- (1) Did the defendants take reasonable care to inform themselves of the true facts of the case'? A.-Yes. (2) (a) Did the defendants honestly believe that the plaintiff had stolen the book? A.-Yes. (b) Did the defendants honestly believe that theo plaintiff had stolen m-neysandstock other than the. book ".Traffic " from the bookstall ? i-Yes. l (3) Were the defendants in instituting the criminal proceedings actuated by malice ? A- No. (4) What damages for the false imprisonment p A.X-75. As his Lordship had left the Court when the jury returned from their delberations, judgment was not entered upon these findings. Solicitors.-Messrs. W. T. Rickett and Son; Messrs. Bircham and Co. DEFICENCY IN STOCK AT A KING'S- CROSS BOOKSTALL. WALTERS v. W. E. SMIITH AND SON.