SITTINGS AT NISI PRIUS.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 9813, 24 August 1897, Page 6

SITTINGS AT NISI PRIUS.

Monday, Avavsi 23. I (Before his Honour Mr Justice Denniston.) ELLISON V TAIAROA. . This was a claim for £1500 damages for libel. Mr Joynt said that in this case his Honour made an order for further particulars, which had not been, furnished, and consequently nothing had been done. The case was allowed to staud over. i GRAY V DEARSLEY. This was a claim for £300 for seduction. Mr Stringer said the parties had been able to effect a settlement that morning. The case was struck out. HUGHES V CLINTON. Claim £500 damages. Air Joynt, for plaintiff, asked to have the case transferred into the list before his Honour alone. The application was granted, and as this concluded the jury cased the jurymen in attendance were discharged. t ARKEE AND OTHERS V SALT AND OTHERS. This was an application for cancellation of mortgage. Mr Douglas asked his Honour to fix some day after hie return from Timaru for the hearing of the case. Mr Mall, for the defendants, agreed. His Honour decided the case should stand over to a date to be subsequently fixed. PKOFFIT V WRKKE AND ANOTHER. This was a claim for £500 damages. Mr Douglas, for plaintiff, said this case would have come on that day, but from the appearance of the list they took it for granted that the jury cases would take the day, and, besides, Mr Beewick was far from well. His Honour pointed out that it was distinctly understood the case was to proceed immediately the jury casee were disposed of. Mr Douglas suggested that the evidence should be taken before the Registrar, and the matter argued on a subsequent day. Mr Fisher for defendants, said they preferred the evidence being taken before his Honour. His Honour asked if the case could be proceeded with next day. Mr Douglas replied in the affirmative. LAWRIE V HYNDMAV This was claim for £33 11 10d, or for accounts. Mr Wilding, for plaintiff, said this was a partnership case involving a question of law, and it was proposed to arrange a day for argument. His Honour agreed to the cpse standing over. TRENT V M'QRKQOR AND ANOTHER. This was an action for transfer of shares, or £500. Mr Joynt said the case was not ripe for trial, and asked that it be allowed to stand over. Mr Russell, for the plaintiff, confirmed the remarks of Mr Joynt, and his Honour allowed the case to stand over. CLEOO V CLEGG AND OTHERS. This was an application for revocation of probate. The Registrar stated that this case had been settled out of Court. iHUOHKS V CLINTON. This was an action for £500 damages. Mr Joynt for the plaintiff, and Mr Stringer for the defendant. The statement of claim by the plaintiff, Catherine Hughes, a spinster, was to the effect that the delendant, Mary Clinton, of Greendale, on the 7th January, 1897, wrote and published a letter to one Mr J. Sexton, care of Mr P. Clinton, Darfield, which said letter was false and malicious, and the plaintiff claimed £500 as compensation for wrong and injury. The statement of. defence was a denial that on or about the 7th Jauuary, 1897, or at any other time the defendant Mary Clinton wrote and published the words set out in the plaintiff's statement of claim, or any other words to the like effect.

Evidence was given by experts as to the handwriting of the letter; by J. Sexton of the receipt of the letter, which was of an offensive character, and his showing it to the plaintiff, with whom he was keeping company; and by Catherine Hughes, who denied the authorship of the letter. For the defence Mary Clinton stated that she did not write the letter, nor did she procure anyone to do so. At the Darneld Court, in some. . cases between the Hughes and Clintons a letter was Seduced which she had. written to Kate ughes. She was then warned not to write such letters, and had not done so since.

After counsel had addressed the Court,

His Honour said he was quite satisfied the defendant wrote the letter, and did it in a pure hysterical spite. He (His Honour) would give such damages as would mark his sense of the character of the letter, and yet would not be too hard on the husband. Had he been punishing the person directly responsible, he would have made the damages heavier. Judgment would be for the plaintiff for £25 damages and costs as per scale.