Untitled

Auckland Star, Volume XXI, Issue 33, 10 February 1890, Page 4

(Withxa jury of twelve.)

Alleged Slander. — Thomas Mace Humphreys James Rae.—This was a claim for £1,250 damages for alleged slander.—Mr J. A. Tole appeared for plaintiff, and Messrs B. HesketharidC. E.Button for defendant.—The right of challenge was freely exercised in selecting , the jury.— Mr Tole, in opening the case to the jury, read the statement of claim, showing that the plaintiff v/as a barrister and solicitor, practising in Auckland, and that the defendant was a pawnbroker and inoney-lenderalso of Auckland; thaton the 19th of Sept. heused the words " You are in bad hands ; you will never get your money out of Iftimphreys." As the plaintiff was put to cost defending a case brought against him in consequence, he claimed £250 as damages on that count. The plaintiff further stated that on the 11th of October the defendant used the words, " I am just _ off to see Uesketh to get him to bring the matter before the Law Society. He deserves to be struck off the roll." Plaintiff claimed £200 on this count. The plaintiff further alleged that on the 14th of June, the defendant said, " That damned scoundrel ■Humphreys robbed me of £200." Plaintiff claimed £500 on this count, making a total of £1,250. Mr Tole pointed out that there were three separate slanders, therefore there must have been deliberate intent. He said that although lawyers were supposed to be thick-skinned, still the law protected their characters from aspersion just the same as that of any other man. He ako quoted from the law of slander.— Henry George Edward Me3'er was the first witness called. He deposed that he knew the plaintiff, Mr Humphreys, to his sorrow. Mr Humphreys used to act for him as his legal adviser, but he did nob like his way?, so he left him.—Mr Tole said he did not like to ask to treob the witness as hostile, but he seemed to have gone off at half-cock.—WitnesssaidMrHumphreys had acted for him from last July twelve mceiths to about April, last year. He received letters from defendant Rae previous to the 19th of laet September. Witness identified letters shown him as having been sent to him by Rae. The letter was received by him at)

Fort Caubley. He did nob then know Mr Rae. Witness was at the time undergoing a sentence of nine months. Whilst there he received the following letter :—Mr Meyer. Sir, —I have to inform you that by last ' mail I received £250, less exchange, which I handed to Mr Humphreys. Perhaps it would be well to have it placed to your own account, as Mr Humphreys told me he would charge £52 10s. I told him that Mr Heaketh would only charge £25, and an hour ago 1 saw Mr Hesketh, who said he would not charge that much. —Your obsdient servant, James Bae." Witness received that letter on the 3rd of July. He received another letter dated the 17th of September : "When you come out of gaol call at my office. I will tell you and also assist you to get your money from Mr Humphreys." Witness saw Mr Rae on the 19th of September, who told him he might have some difficulty in getting his money from Mr Humphreys. Witness could no!; remember whether Mr Rao said he was in bad hands. Witness remembered having signed something that was. written by Mr Humphreys. —Mr Tole wanted to pub in this document, but His Honor ruled it out.—Witness further stated that the words in the documentwere extracted by Mr Humphreysfrom him under pledgo some weeks after. He was induced to sign tho paper under pressure in Mr Humphreys' offica, Mr Rae recommended him to go to Mr Napier, and ultimately witness instructed that gentleman to recover his money from Mr Humphreys. Witness received 2,0 sovereigns from Humphreys on tho 17th September, and sent for £5 afterward, which he did not get.—Mr Tole then asked Mr Butler to produce a certain ettcr. Mr Button examined his papers and said that the only letter he had of that date was a postal card, " Thou haat thrust sore at me that I might fall, but the Lord was my help." Psalmllß,l3th verse.— Mr Tole put in a written apology to Mr Humphreys signed by witness, and also an advertisement — His Honor thought that before crossexamination it would bo as well to point out that Mr Meyer had only been examined as regards one of the alleged slanders. Ho did not know what other evidence would be adduced, but if there was no further proof than the evidence of this witness he should have to tell the jury that there was no evidence supporting the slander stated in paragraph 5" of the statement of claim. —Mr Tole said other evidence would be forthcoming.

(Lett sitting. )