SUPREME COURT, WESTLAND.

Press, Volume XI, Issue 1338, 20 February 1867, Page 3

SUPREME COURT, WESTLAND.

Tuesday, February 12. [Before his Honor Mr. Justice Gresson.] Babtlet t. Shaav. This was an action before a special ; ury brought by the proprietor aiid answer of the Prince of Wales unera D House, Hokitika, against the "West Coast Times" newspaper, for the publication of an alleged libel in that journal, and by which it was conended the plaintiff has sustained damages to the extent of £5000. Messrs South and O'Loughhn appeared for the plaintiff and Messrs Button and Harvey for the defendant. Mr South opened the case by stating that the defendant, as proprietor of the " West Coast Times " newspaper, had published certain matter in that journal on the 27th August, 1566, calculated to injure the plaintiff m his business as an actor, and bring him into public ridicule and disgrace. He then read the declaration and pleas. Mr O'Loughlin said the-jury had heard the grounds on which the plaintiff had come into that court to decide whether the matter complained of was a fair and bona fide comment upon any man in public business. There were two distinct libels complained of affecting the plaintiff's character as an actor and a manager. A great deal of evidence was then produced to prove the publication of the paper containing the libel, Mr Harvey contending that before a paper could be read as evidence it must be proved. His Honor made a note of the objection, and ordered the case to proceed, saying that all he had admitted was that defendant had published a paper—the "West Coast Times " —on the 27th August. There was no secondary evidence of a libel. It must be taken for what it was worth. After some further discussion, the article containing the alleged libel was read by the Eegistrar. five plaintiff and treasurer were th&n called as witnesses to prove that the receipts of the theatre had fallen off after the publication of the alleged libel. The plaintiff's and defendant's counsel then addressed the jury, and his Honor having summed up the case, tho jury* retired to consider their verdict, and. after an. absence of about three hours returned into Court with the following replies to the issues remitted to them: — 1. Bid the pl;dntif_ exercise and carry on tho business of theatrical manager?— Yes. 2. Did the defendant on or about the 27th day of August, 1866, falsely and maliciously print and publish of the plaintiff in relation to hi* said business and the carrying on and conducting thereof by him in a newspaper called the " West Coast Times" the words mentioned and set out in the declaration ?— Yes. 3. Were the said words used by the defendant in a defamatory sense calculated to injure the said plaintiff in his said profession and business of a theatrical manager, and bring him into public contempt, ridicule and disgrace ?—Yes. 4. Were the words in the declaration mentioned part of an article printed and published in the said newspaper in the declaration mentioned, and was the said article so containing the said words in the declaration mentioned a fair and bona fide comment upon the KTeral zpatters and premises therein contained and referred to and upon the conduct of the plaintiff as such theatrical manager as in the declaration mentioned in reference thereto, and was the said article printed and published as aud for such comment and without any malicious motive or intent whatsoever ? -No. - ; 5. Did the plaintiff exercise and carry on the profession and business of an actor ? -Yes. 6. Did the defendant on or about tho 27th day of August, 1886, falsely and maliciously print and publish of the plaintiff in relation to his said last mentioned profession and business, and in the carrying on and conducting thereof in a newspaper called the " West Coast Times," the words mentioned and set out in that behalf in tho declaration of plain-tiff?-Yes. '• Were the said last mentioned words in ' the declaration mentioned used by the defenoent in a defamatory senso, and wero they calculated to injure the plaintiff in his said profession and business, and bring on him public contempt, ridicule, and disgrace ?—Yes8. Were the last mentioned words in the declaration mentioned part of an article pnnted and published in the said newspaper, and was the said article so containing the said words in the declaration mentioned a fair and wzajide comment upon the several matters and premises therein contained and referred »»and upon the conduct of the plaintiff as an *f&>r as in tho declaration mentioned, and was we said article printed and published by the asjendant as and for such comment and without any malicious motive or intent whatever. —So. Js the plaintiff entitled to any and what «<*»_<*iin respect of the premises ?—Yes, £5. Mr Harvey then asked his Honor if ne would sit in banco the next day to Jear a motion to enter a non-suit in Jms case, and set aside the verdict on we ground of the point reserved this morning as to the absence of proof of Publication by the defendant. «!S Honor having stated that he would Si t at eleven o'clock, Mr South applied to have the case certified as a epma jury case, and hi 3 Honor complied.