ACTION FOR LIBEL.

Clutha Leader, Volume XLIII, Issue 4, 14 July 1916, Page 7

ACTION FOR LIBEL.

CLAIM ANT) COUNTER-CLAIM. LANDLORD AND TENANT'S DISPUTE. PEQI'FX ,N MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

\i the Magistrate's Court at Balrlutha on Friday, before Mr H. A. Young. S.M.. .las. Murray, farmer, Port Molvneux, claimed~to recover from William Henry Arnold, teamster, Northeast Valley (Dunedin), the sum of £8 ,-,j, made »r> as follows:—13 weeks' rent at 4s 6d per week, from January 30, IStlfi, to April 30, 1916, £2 18s 6d"; one door key and lock, 4s 6d; damage to window pane, 2s; trespassing on plaintiff V land am! cutting down growing timber thereon, £5. Defendant counter-claimed from the plaintiff as follows: . (1) That the plaintiff let to the defendant a dwelling-house and premises at Port Molyneux for the term of one vear, from April 30, 1910, and as conilitions of the tenancy agreed:—(a) That the plaintiff and the defendant would from time to time during the tenancy together cut from plaintiff's liush such firewood as would be required l,v the plaintiff and the defendant for domestic use, that the plaintiff would sledge the firewood so cut to a site opposite the defendant's house, ami that the defendant should be entitled to one-half of such firewood for his own me. (l'.i That the plaintiff would during the tenancy sell to the defendant ftirli milk as the defendant required for the use of his family and himself, (c) That the defendant would during the tenancy be entitled to a supply of water for domestic purposes from the plaintiff's pump.

(2) That the plaintiff during the last four months of the tenancy refused to perform ami permit the enjoyment of the said conditions, in consequence whereof the defendant lost much time mul was put to much inconvenience. Wherefor the defendant claims to recover as damages from the plaintiff the sum of £5.

(;i) That on January -1, 1916, the plaintiff published in a letter to William Knox, of Balchitha, hairdresser, the following words concerning defendant: — "I would point out that Arnold has no legal right to the house. So, as man to man, I ask you not to heap coals on an already too hot fire by helping him to make u>e of what is not his. The furniture and effects are not his —they belong to me He hasn't paid his rent nor hi* milk bill, and has been writing dirty letters anil leaving them in conspicuous places where 1 can't help but find thein,henee my reason for trying to get rid of him."

(4) The publication was false and malicious, wherefor the defendant claims to recover as damages from the jilaintiff the sum of £SO. The defendant further says: (5) That on January 20, J915, and on different subsequent dates the plaintiff entered upon the enclosure round the defendant's dwelling-house and depastured the same with cattle and horses, trod down the grass, damaged the wire netting thereon, and otherwise injured the same and endangered the comfort and safety of defendant, his wife, children and iodgers. Wherefor the defendant claims to recover as damages from the plaintiff the sum of £lO. The case for the plaintiff Murray was then proceeded with, being briefly outlined by Mr R. R. Stewart. James Murray stated that he was a farmer residing at Port Molyneux. Defendant was a tenant of a house, the property of witness, and admitted owing £2 18s 6d for rent. When defendant went into the house he had a key that fitted the lock, but when he vacated it another key had been substituted. Witness had to buy a new lock of the value of Is lid. A pane of glass in the window, valued at 2s, was broken, and damage had been done to the standing timher, and though he only claimed £5 for this, £3O would not cover the damage. To Mr Finch: He had arranged to allow defendant to take firewood off the liroperty. but not from the bush in which defendant cut down the tree.

To Mr Stewart: Witness specially pointed out to Arnold that he was not to interfere with three particular patches of bush. The tree referred to was that cut down oa April 16. The Magistrate: Did you say anything to defendant about it J

Witness: 1 called him everything but 4 gentleman.

The Magistrate: Bid he threaten you in any way f Witness: he threatened to chop me *ith the axe, but he wasn't game to do even than

•'as. Campbell (farmer, Port Molyneux i said he -saw a stump of a red kamai tree from which the tree had recently been felled. The damage done by the falling tree was about £6 or £7.

Air Finch said that defendant admitted the claim for rent. Plaintiff had agreed to allow defendant to take firewood and water. William Henry Arnold said he was a teamster at Dunedin. He had leased the property from plaintiff for a year at 4s W per week. Rent for the last i:*> *ceks had not been paid. He left the windows in a better state of repair than *'lien he went into the house. Witness denied interfering with the lock. With reference to the kainai tree, it was largely decayed and must have been 20 years or more since the tree was alive. Jt va,! not growing timber, but a standin*,' Mump. The stump fell on to a patch of Canadian thistles, and did uot touch any standing trees when falling. To X[r Stewart: The stump was on the edge of the bush. Mr Murray did not say he was not to take firewood from aay particular piece of bush. The agreement made with Murray was that they *ere to eut the firewood together. He had asked Murray to go with Mm to vut firewood on the day in question, but Murray was too busy. Plaintiff was v ery annoyed because he (witness) had W down the stump. Witness had out

firewood' from a place further distant,

and Murray was to cart it. This plaintiff did not' do, and the wood disappeared. That was why witness cut down the kamai s-tump, This closed the case for the plaintiff Murray, and the counter-claim was then proceeded with, the defendant (Arnold) in the previous case becoming the plaintiff, and the plaintiff (Murray) being the defendant.

1 William Henry Arnold (plaintiff) said he was a teamster. He was fishing at Port Molyneux, and interviewed Murray (defendant) relative to the .latter's house. Plaintiff agreed to rent the ; house at -Is 6d per week. Witness said [ there was insufficient water at the house, and defendant told him he could take what water he required from a concrete well holding 2000 or 3000 gallons near | defendant's house. Witness arranged with defendant to get what firewood he required, it being agreed that" they should cut the wood together, and defendant would cart it. Witness made an arrangement to pay the rent every three mouths. Defendant agreed to sell milk to witness at 3d per quart. Witness took possession on May 1, 1915. He took in lodgers during the Christmas holidays. Mr Knox and family and housekeeper lodged- with him during that time. Trouble arose over the milk about a week before Christmas. The reason witness cut down the stump was that he was short of firewood. Witness agreed to rent the house for j2 months. Witness hail never written any letters to defendant. Some of the furriture in the house belonged 1 to witness and some to defendant. Witness owned about £3O worth of the furniture, an 1 defendant £5 worth. Witness put up an enclosure of wire netting to prevent his children straying. Defendant's cattle tramped the netting down, and witness' wife spoke to Mr Murray about it on several When the cattle were turned out defendant put them in again. To Mr Stewart: He made no inquiries relative to securing another house. He talked of getting a tent so that he could camp nearer his work, but decided later to remain at home. Murray offered to sell him all the furniture in the house for £4 10s. Prior to the letter (produced), written by defendant to Knox, witness received notice from defendant to quit the house. Witness detailed the articles of furniture taken into the house by him. At the end of three months defendant sent his account for rent and received his money. The milk bill was paid monthly. He received an account at the end of December for milk and rent. This account had not been paid-by January 21, but the rent account was not due until the eud of January. He (witness) had never written any dirty letters about defendant. In consequence of the letter written by defendant to Knox, witness' wife wrote the letter (produced in court). Witness ami his wife suspected defendant of stealing eggs from their hens' nests. Witness' witje wrote the letter and placed it in one of the nests.

To Mr Finch: They were losing eggs about Christmas time, and they could not find out who was taking them. To the magistrate: Trouble arose over the visitors to witness' place. Defendant said the house 'belonged to him and witness had no right to take in boarders.

Adeline Constance Arnold (wife of the previous witness) stated that she went to Port Molyneux last April to live in a cottage belonging to Mr Murray. The last supply of milk received from defendant Was on December 24. Mrs Murray delivered the milk, stating: "There's your milk. That's the last you'll get." The account was sent in for the milk within two hours of the time of delivery. That account had j since been paid. The Murray* did not j subsequently supply them with any I milk. Witness had subsequently to go I about a three hours' journey to procure milk. The supply of water was stopped ' about the third l week in January. T>e- i fendant removed the pump handle, and when asked the reason said: "Because I am not going to have you coming over for any more water.'' Witness admitted writing the letter which was placed in a hen's nest. She had been losing her hens' eggs and thought someone must be taking them. She placed the letter in a nest so that whoever came to the nest would get it. When she returned to the nest the letter was gone and the nest filled with suet. Witness had heard" about the letter written, to Mr Knox by defendant. A gentleman from Bal- i clutha who was acting as agent for witness wrote stating that there was a difficulty in securing boarders on account of the trouble with defendant. To Mr* Stewart: The letter was written about Christmas time. She might have mentioned to her husband that she had written the letter, but they had not discussed the matter. Witness* husband had inquired the price of a tent at the Import Company with the idea of accommodating boarders-. William • Knox (hairdresser, Balclutha) stated that his family and housekeeper went to board at plaintiff's house about Christmas. He received the letter written by Murray. If he had known about the trouble he would not I have sent his family to the house. WitI ness handed the letter to Arnold-about • the end of January. Mr Stewart, after outlining the case for defendant, said that there could be •no question of libel. With regard to the dirty letters, the letter written by Mrs Arnold was certainly dirty, and it was unbelievable that it was written by a woman unassisted. The letter written by defendant- to Knox was therefore true, and so could not be libellous Jas. Murray (defendant) said that no term of tenancy for the house was fixed with plaintiff, though the matter was discussed. The rent was fixed at 3s 6d, and if a range was put in the rent would be 4s 6d per week. Witness arranged to let defendant have firewood, but stated that certain portions of bush must not be interfered' with. The question of milk was arranged between witness' wife and plaintiff. The question of water was not mentioned when plaintiff 'rented the house. Witness sttpu-

lated that he should have the house for the holiday season, as he received 30s to £2 per week for six or seven weeks during that season. Witness received no complaints from the Arnolds relative to the eggs going missing. No complaint was made uy Arnold in regard to not receiving firewood from August to April. As far as witness knew plaintiff took no furniture iuto the house. If he had £3O worth of furniture it must have been up his sleeve. The letter written by plaintiff's wife was found by witness' little bov in witness' hen nest.

To Mr Finch: He gave plaintiff a job last year as he had not paid his rent or milk account at that date

At this stage Mr Finch produced three separate accounts, each of three months, showing that the two former accounts were paid within a week from the due date.

Witness (continuing) stated that he considered plaintiff was a weekly tenant.

ill- Finch: Is the real reason why you made trouble at Christmas because you thought you could get more for the house at Christmas time, after having received 4s 6d per week for the house ' during the off season? Is that not why ; you said plaintiff had no legal right to the house? Witness: No. I said witness had no legal right to the house because he had j not kept his agreement to fix up and , clean out the water closet. Witness stated that he was afraid an epidemic might break out. Witness' little boy saw witness' hen lay in the nest in which Mrs Arnold's letter was found. Witness had one' hen, and Mrs Arnold probably had 13. The Magistrate: Why did you not tell Mr Knox the true reason why you wished to get rid of Mr Arnold ( Witness: Because I thought Mr Knox / would know what was what when he read the letter.

The Magistrate: Then you did not tell the true reason?

Witness: That wan part of the reason. The Magistrate: Why did you not put plaintiff out after you found he was a nuisance to you? Witness: I told Mr Stewart after the tenant had been in the house about four mouths to take steps to make plaintiff leave the house.

Continuing, witness said he thought by writing to Knox that the latter would take his children away and not help to aggravate an existing nuisance. The magistrate in summing up said that as regards the claim for rent (£- JBs) this was admitted. The onus was on the plaintiff (Murray) to show that the damaga claimed for door lock (4s (sd) and window pane (2s) was due to defendant, and this had not been done to his (the magistrate's) satisfaction. As regards the claim for trespass, he was satisfied that defendant had trespassed, and he would award £5 damages. Judgment would therefore be given for plaintiff for £7 18s 6d, court costs 10s, and solicitor's fee £1 6s.

With regard to the counter-claim, ho (the magistrate) was not satisfied that the plaintiff's (Arnold's) claim for water and firewood were terms of the lease. Certain privileges were allowed plaintiff, but they could not be taken as conditions of the lease. With reference to the claim for libel the main defence was that the words complained of were claimed to be true. He (the magis* trate) was not satisfied that the words were true. He was satisfied that the tenancy was for one year, and that the rent was to be paid quarterly. At the time the letter was written the rent for the current quarter was not yet due. Plaintiff had not written any tetter, but his wife had done so. This letter could riot be called a dirty letter under the circumstances. Murray's idea in his letter was to defame plaintiff, so that Knox i might take his children away from the ! house. 'There Was nothing of au obscene 1 nature in the letter written by Mrs Arnold, of anything that would have a bad effect on children. Murray's letter did not contain the truth. It said that Arnold had no legal right to the house, and he (the magistrate) considered Arnold had a legal right to it. The statement that plaintiff had not paid his rent and had written dirty letters was, in the magistrate's opinion, defamatory, and was calculated to effect both plaintiff's character and credit. As regards the last part of the action he (the magistrate) was not satisfied that plaintiff was' in possession of any part of the enclosure, but only the house and a right-of-way, so would not be entitled to any damages under this head. With reference to the claim for libel some !-damages should be allowed, and he (the magistrate) considered the amount should 'be substantial to prevent people being libelled in this manner." He would ' allow £lO for the libel action, with court I costs ss, solicitor '& fee £1 Is, and* witness' expenses l'2s.