_Mr Simth moved lor a non-Piiit. There was not a tittle of evidence in support of the firs!, count chaiviii" defendant with assault ami false im risonmont. JuliH not appear how plaintiff came to be arrested and consequently, there was nothiivjr whatever to connect the defendat.t with th 4 clreuni-fcuica True lie vis arrested lry Sergeuiit M'Gaun, but whether or not in VUe Sppgosint's own motion or on another duiy* did not appear. Therefore, so far ?.s the first c mit v.-as concerned, there was no evidence ir. support of it a-ul he had a right to ask His Honour to direct a noiisiu! or a verdict. As to the second count, ho submitted that plaintiff had not, as plaintiffs were always bound to do in such actions, given some evidence," however slight, of want ot rcasonablo and probable cause. Ho submitted that the plaintiff had not only falV-d to do that, but he had actually supplied, the Jud^e with that evidence upon which he (Mr Smith) l;ad a- rkrht to r.sk Hia Honour 'ip say tUcre was reasonable orin-o bable cause, ■ ' After th,o nonsuit points had been fully argued His Honoui- said Ue thought there was a case to go to the Jury, but woidd reserve the point raised No witnesses were called for the defence ITr llacassoy aduroasod the Jury for tha plaintiff, and Mr Smith for the den-ndant. His Honour then summed up, and after a short retirement the Ji-rv brought in the fallowing answcis to the issues > 1. Did the defendant assault the plaintiff ami give him mto custody to a policeman, and cause him to. be imprisoned as in the fu^count of the declaration is alleged?— No.
