SUPREME COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XIX, Issue 149, 25 June 1888, Page 8

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SITTINGS.

(Before His Honor Mr Justice Gillies.) Georce White v. James Morel _ Metcalfe and Bessie Metcalfe.—This was a claim for £1,000, damages for alleged libel. —Mv Humphreys appeared for the plaintiff and ;Mr Mahony for, .the. .defendant.—Mr Humphreys opened the case, and explained to the jury that the plaintiff, George White, was an accountant, carrying on business in Auckland, while the defendants were James Morell Metcalfe, a gentleman living on his means at Matakohe, in the Kaipara district, and Bessie Metcalfe, his wife. The alleged libel consisted in the alleged fact that on or about tlie 20th of December, 1887, Mrs Mctealf.wrotca letter to a Mrs H. N. Warner, of Auckland, in which occurred a■'passage in which the defendant stated that " he (George White) had failed in a most disgraceful, way.at Home." The defence filed was that" the alleged letter had never been written. Examined by Mr Humhpreys, George White deposed: I.am an accountant. I know the defendants in this action ; I was introduced to them in December last at the house of Mr Warner. I was at that time the manager of the Civil Service Supply Association, and I had a conversation with Mr Metcalfe about it. He had made an application for fifteen £1 shares, and'had paid £7 10s as a deposit. At the request of Mrs Metcalfe (Mr Metcalfe boing present), I purchased some goods to the amount of £9 for the defendants. I was only paid for these goods in April of this year, though I had made application, I had also mado application to Messrs Hill and Mahony at the direction of Mr Metcalfe for the money, but I did not get it. When I applied to Mr Hill for the money, I was simply blackguarded, to use a vulgar expression. Finding that I did not get the money,appliedfor,lpaid for the goods out of my own pocket. I was finally paid by Mr Hill in April after I had taken this action. Mr Metcalfe made an application to have his name taken off the subscribers o' ■ the Civil Servioe Supply Association, An affidavit was Eufc in that had been filed, having een made by Mr Metcalfe, — His Honor objected to this being put In, as not bearing on the o .se,-^T«. witness cor-

tinued his evidence and stated : I was a broker in Mincing Lane, London, with a very large business. . I was for 17 years the London broker of the New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Company. I was shown a letter last December by Mr Warner. [The letter was shown in a mutilated shape by Mr Humphreys,and, Mr Mahony objecting, His Honor would not allow it to be put in.] Witness, under examination, continued : I saw the whole letter, a portion of which has been shown. I took action alter seeing it. Mr Warner gave me a portion of the letter. It is not true that I failed in a most disgraceful manner inLondon; on the contrary, 1 did what any honest man would have done. After 34 years' hard labour I gave up everything to my creditors when my business failed. I sold my house, life policies, and esrerything else, while my wife gave up £5,000 worth of property. When I left London I was presented by my fellow brokers with £250 to show their goodwill towards mo, I came to tho colony in 1886. I established the Civil Service Supply Association in March last year, which has been a success. I was manager of it for some time, and did not leave it of my own accord. I was requested by the directors to leave. I was spoken to in reference to the alleged slander by Captain Daldy, Mr Wilding and Captain Worsp separately and conjointly. _Mr Warner, who gave ire the letter containing the 'alleged libel, is the father-in-law of the defendant; he is a deacon of the Beresford - street Congregational Church. In consequence of the publication of a letter to Mr Warner I suffered very seriously, and my objoct in bringing thin action is to seek redress and damage.— Examined by Mr Mahony : My object in bringing the action is nob to mako money. I had a partner of the name of Binney all the time.l was in business in London. ; 1 only came to grief on one occasion. I never entered on *speculations,gbut I advanced money largely. It is not a fact that I was refused admission to the Commercial Sales Room after my failure. When the directors of tho Civil Service Supply asked me to leave they gave thrt.e reasons. (1) They had lost faith in my discretion ; (2) that I was not financially in a good position ; (3) the failure to provide a guarantee policy. It is not true that the Company was going to riun under my managership. My position in regard to the Company is financially correct.—Re-examined by Mr Humphreys : Several friends of mine who were shareholders in the Civil Service Association endeavoured to have a meeting called to get my dismissal explained, but the directors declined to call it.— Horatio Nelson Warner deposed: _ I know both the defendants and the plaintiff. Mrs Metcalfe is my daughter. The portion of the letter produced is in my daughter's handwriting. The letter was received by me in Auckland somewhere about December last. I showed the letter to' Mr White, deeming it my moral duty to do so at that time. I was a shareholder in the Civil Service Supply Association at that time. I did not deem it my moral duty to show the letter to the officers of my church, and I did not do so.—His Honor : Is that the whole document as you received it?— Witness: No.—Mr Humphryes : Is that document as you gave it to the plaintiff?-Ans. It is. The letter is the same as I gave it to him.—By Mr Mahony : Bessie Metcalfe is my wife. I havo only known the plaintiff some months. My daughter was in the country, and is in tho habit of writing almost weekly to her mother, so that she did not apparently go out of hor way to write the letter. I showed the letter of my daughter to Mr White to stop this action, as 1 thought. If I had thought that ib would assist it, I never would have given it. The letter and this action have in no way destroyed my high opinion of Mr White.— William Henry Lyon, a merchant of Auckland, deposed that he had known the plaintiff since he had been in Auckland. He knew him by sight and reputation in London, when he was carrying on an extensive business in Mincing Lane as a colonial broker. He bore a good reputation. I never heard that ho failed disgracefully at Home, although I knew he failed; there was nothing but sympathy expressed for Mr White when he did fail.— By Mr Mahony : I was only a visitor to London, and only know about Mr White during the year I was thete. —Mr Mahony for the defence said that the action was based upon a letter written by; Bessie Metcalfe, and as no letter had been produced the defendant had nothing to submit.—Mr Humphreys for the plaintiff endeavoured to show that the alleged letter had been libellous, buo His Honor ruled that the letter nob having been put in as evidence it was not admissiable for proving anything. His Honor ruled that the letter, not having been proved, the plaintiff had not proved his case. Where a document was put in to prove a libel the whole document must be pub in, for one part of it might be libellous and the other part might be >.uite tho reverse. He therefore nonsuited the plaintiff with costs on the higher scale. Bask oi? New Socth Walks v. Thk AUCKJUM) iMVESTiiaST Cu.MI'ANY AND OTHLiiS.— This n-as an action for £2,745 7s 8d money advanced. Mr Coleman appeared for the plaintiff. He stated there were six defendants five of whom had signed a confession of indebtedness, but one, Robert E. Isaacs had left the Colony and no appearance was made for him. Hugh Butler Lush deposed that he was the witness of the bond for the money advanced to the defendants by the Bank of New South Wales. : Ho witnessed the signatures of Graves Aickin, Hugh Campbell, George Fraser, Robert E. Isaacs, Alfred Kidd, James Mason.—Graves Aickin, deposed that he was a chemist carryiug on business in Auckland. He knew tho Auckland Investment ComE'any of which ho was a' director. The ond produced had beon signed by him and by the other defendants.—Thomas Ivey, manager of the Bank of New South Wales in Auckland, witnessed the signing of the bond by the defendants and to the amount sued for, with interest on the same.—Mr Coleman moved for judgment on the defendant, Robert Isaacs.—Judgment given for the amount claimed, with costs on tbe highest scale.

Bank of New Sooth Wales v. D. H. MoKenzie. —By consent the hearing of this action was postponed until next sitting.

Charles KossGiiolmoxdeleySmithv. W. G. Allen.—Claim £200 damages for alleged slander.—Tried with a jury of four.—Mr Napier appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Theo. Cooper for the defence. —Mr Napier, in opening the case, stated that Mr Smith was a settler at Long Bay, up the coast, and was captain of a troop of cavalry raised in that district, and as captain held Her Majesty's commission. Mr Allen was a draper and tailor in Auckland, and had supplied a number of uniforms for Mr Smith's troop. The alleged libel consisted in the fact that on the 16th December, 1887, he called out in a public thoroughfare about the plaintiff that . ' Captain Smith had committed larceny as a baillee." A defence had been entered that the expression had never been used. It would rest with the jury to assess the amount of damages, as the libel would be clearly proved.— Charles Ross Cholmondeley Smith, a settler in Long Bay, a place situated between the Wade and deposed : I hold several commissions in Her Majesty's service. I know Mr Allen and have been a customer of his for some time. About two years_ ago the members of my troop obtained a number of uniforms from Mr Allen, but I had no responsibility in the matter. On the 16th of December last I came into Auokland ; as I passed through the Victoria Aroade, where the plaintiff had his shop, the defendant? rushed out and o,b« ,e4 w about th.

uniforms the troopers had ordered. I asked him why he dared to speak to me in that manner, and then bid him good-bye. and continued on my way to the Crown Lands Office, where I had business. The defendant followed me to the office where I was going, and from thence to the wharf. On the wharf he tapped me on the shoulder and told me he would give me one more chance and I must pay up that money or he would give me in charge. I told him he had my answer, and then I saw him call a policeman and heard him bid the policeman take me in charge for larceny as a bailee. I told the constable that I thought the man mad. Mr Allen repeated his order to the policeman, threatening him to report him if he did not do so. I gave the constable an explanation he asked for and while doing so Mr Allen said in a loud voice that he (the witness) had taken in uniforms and sold them and pocketed the money ? Three times he ordered the constable to take plaintiff in charge for larceny as a bailee, but the policeman would notdo so. The whole occurrence occupied about twenty minutes and thei c was a crowd round all the time. — By Mr Cooper.—l have never asked for an apology. I wish to clear my honour. —Mr Cooper.—l here offer you a full apology on behalf of my client, Mr Allen—an apology without reservation for what he said. —Mr Napier objected that the apology could not be made now in this way, and at this time.—Mr Cooper then continued his examination of the witness, who said : The libel occurred last December and it was not uutil March that I filed my writ. Mr Allen obtained a judgment against me in February for the uniform, which writ i? still outstanding. Mr Allen, when he followed mc, did not seem excited. The difficulty was over the uniform of a man who had left the troop Captain Smith commanded. Theuniform had not been paid for, audit had not been returned to Mr Allen. Edward Mackie, a constable in the water police, remembered the 16th of December last. He gave an account of the whole occurrence between Mr Allen and Captain Smith, substantiating Captain Smith's evidence in every particular.

(Left sitting.)