ALLEGED LIBEL.

Auckland Star, Volume XXV, Issue 152, 27 June 1894, Page 8

ALLEGED LIBEL.

A COUNTRY SCHOOL CASE,

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES,

His Honor Mr Justice Conolly, and a jury of four, were occupied the whole of yesterday ao the Supreme Court, hearing the statemenb of the defendant in the case of Wrigley v. FLeher, claim for damages for alleged libel. Mr Hugh Campbell, instructed by Mr Cave, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr T. Cotter, instructed by Mr Stewart, for the defence. Tbe evidence in chief of Mr Fisher appeared in yesterday's issue. After we went to press Mr Campbell cross-examined the defendant at considerable length. In answer to Mr Campbell the witness stated he could not say thab written notices of these various motions had been given to.Committeemen. He did nob recqive notice in writing of the motion of Capbain Rogers. Mr Campbell then quobed from the Educabion Act, " thab no recommendation to the Board concerning the appointment, suspension, or dismissal of a teacher shall be considered unless notice in writing that such business is proposed to be transacted has been given to tbe members of tbe Cominibtee at least bhree days before such meeting of the Committee shall be held," His Honor : Boards do nob ask whether the formalities of the Acb have been complied with. Mr Campbell : We don't know. His Honor : You ought to know because Mr Rice was your witness. Mr Campbell said the clause was negative in its provision. His Honor: The recommendations are neither for " appoinbmenb, suspension, nor dismissal."

Mr Campbell: For dismissal. His Honor: Removal is not dismissal

Mr Campbell : I contend thia recommendation to the Board was illegal, and consequently was not covered by privilege. His Honor said Mr Fisher was nob sued as Chairman of the Committee. Mr Campbell said if his point was upheld evidence of bona fides would be irrelevant. Mr Cobber, in reply, said bhat bona fide communications from persona interested were privileged. He contended that the Committee bad never asked for the dismissal of ohe teacher.

His Honor said if a teacher was to be removed on accounb of incompetence and misconduct, ib would surely be very likely to mean dismissal.

Mr Cotter said his firsb contention was that the section quoted by Mr Campboll did nob apply to applications for removal. His second contention was that if this waa an application for dismissal, Mr Fisher, as an individual interested, had a right to approach the Board. His Honor said it would be more convenient to suspend judgment oa this point until the issues were placed before tho jury, when the point could be more fully argued. Wibness, in answer to Mr Campbell, said ha did not always sign his name in confirmation of the minutes at the Committee meeting. Sometimes he wrote his namo when he gob home. In somo instances words were written in the minutes somo time after the Committee meetings, but never after the minutes had been confirmed. He had no feeling of unfriendliness to Mr Christenson. On one occasion Mr Christenaon gave witness an unstamped receipt. Witness did not know who was liable and he made enquiries through a person who was going to Mongonui. Tke police got to hear of ib and wrote to witness, who replied that he was unwilling to appear in the case. Tbe constable came and told witness that if Mr Christenson wished he could claim the money again, and wibness would havo to buy a £5 stamp before he could resist the claim. Witness then agreed to appear as v wibness against Mr Christenson. Witness was not summonsed and consequenbly did not go^to givo evidence. He knew tbab Mr Christenson was lined one shilling at courb. He had no ariitflua againsb Mr Christenson, but he wonld nob say he would trust him. Mr Campbell here pub a document in to witness's hand and asked : Is bhat your signature ? Witness replied : It is. Mr Campbell: Did you write the heading to that paper asking the Board to remov4 Mias Wrigley ? Witness : No (then holding up the paper to the gas), why, it's joined in the middle. My signature is on bhe lower half. Mr Campbell examined tbe paper, and 1 admitted that such was the case, and said he had nob noticed ib before. The witness was asked regarding tho various names on tho paper, and admitted that several ot those who signed had no children attending the school, also that the wives of several Committeemen bad signed as well as their husbands.

The gravity of the Court waa diaturbed by one answer. Mr Campbell aaked : Then all of chose names of women are those of tho wives of the Committee-men ? Witness replied : Yes, with the exception that this one's his mother. Shortly after thia the Courb adjourned until this morning. TODAY'S PROCEEDINGS. This morning at ten o'clock the action for alleged libel, broughb by Mies Anna Wrigley, the teacher of the Fairbum Road School, Mangonui, againsb Mr T. Fisher, the Chairman of the local School Commibtee, waa continued before Hia Honor Mr Justice Conolly and a jury of four. The defendant, who waa in the box during the whole of yesterday and when the Court rose, was further cross-examined by Mr Campbell (plaintiff's solicitor). Hia Honor asked the witneas whebher he wrote the letter of the 20th of Ocbober before or after the meeting of the Committee.

Witness replied that he could not really say. He should think after, bub he had nob a disbincb recollection.

Alex. McKay, a member of the Fairburn Committee, deposed to certain meetings of the Committee, and stated that bho defendant had exhibited no personal feeling against the plaintiff. He deposed to being present at a meeting of committee held on 20th of October, at which it waa decided to charge the teacher with incompetency and misconduct. Witness saw the letter before it was sent to the Board.

William Rogers, anobher member of the Schoal Commibtee, gavo evidence. He denied bhab eibher himself or Mr Fisher had treated Miss Wrigley in other than a gentlemanly way. Mr Fisher did nob show any feeling or ill-will to Misa Wrigley. The case was proceeding when we went to press.