LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 211, 30 May 1908, Page 13

LAW REPORTS.

SUPREME COURT. GIYIL SITTINGS.' ALLEGED WRONGFUL DISTRAINT. ' . DAMAGES ASSESSED AT £75. ; ' LEGAL QUESTIONS RESERVED. - The hearing of tho case botween Camilla Leslie and .Ellen Stevens—a claim for £501 damages for allegod wrongful 'distress for rent—was concluded yesterday before Mr. Justico Chapman and a jury of twelve, of which Mr. Matthew Barr was foreman. Mr. Myers . (instructed by Messrs. Field, Luckie, and Toogood) appeared on behalf of tho plaintiff, and Mr. Gray for the defeud : ant. ' ' , Thei cvidenco of plaintiff, who is, a private boarding-house Keeper at Oriental Bay, was, briefly, that slio rented two houses from the defendant, to whom she paid £23 Os. 4d. per month in tho way of rent. The lease contained a clause giving the defendant tho right to, distrain in the evorit of the rent, being in arrear for seven days. On Wednesday, February 5, defendant called for the rent, but was informed that she would rcccivo it next day " One of plaintiff's maids on tho following day took the money round to defendant's residence, but received no response to her knock. On Friday plaintiff posted a cheque to defendant for tho full amount. . Under instructions from defendant, a bailiff visited plaintiff's residence on Sat: ur'day, when, acting on tlio advice of'her. solicitor, plaintiff gave another cheque. Further evidence was given by Alico Cook and , Christina';Avery, housemaids at plaintiff's boarding-houses; Buchanaii Scott, tho bailiff; and E. Palmer,-toachor.. Mr. Gray, on behalf of thq defendant, contended that tho mere , fact of there being rent' in arrear _ entitled defendant to distrain at any time after it Was in arrear. Counsel for tho other side relied on tho agreement giving seven days' grace. His Honour, at stage, said that the point was this: it was purely a, matter of law .whether defendant had the right to distrain within seven days. If tho effect of the agreement was tbat defendant must postpone her right to distrain for seven days then it mustbo_ for seven, complete days, and dofendant did not possess tlio right to distrain on tho Saturday. The question was not one for the jury, and, -therefore, he would not at that juncture hear elaborate argument on the point. l Ho proposed to direct tho jury to find for the plaintiff, and to assess tho amount of damages which she had ! suffered, and ho (would resorvo leave to tho I dofendant to move. .' j . Mr. Gray then intimated that he did not, intend to call evidence. Counsel addressed the jury on the ques-tion-of damages. ; His Honour, in summing up,-toldtl\o jury that, its task was a comparatively simple one. , It had to consider (1) whether plaintiff had suffered any damage, and (2) what was tho amount of'that damage. The case, ap-peared-to'ba ono where the damage? should bo neither. nominal -nor.vindicative, but temperate; and, bearing that in mind,' the jury would arrive at-a verdict with which no one would have just reason to complain, r , The jury, which retired at 12.12-' p.m., returned at ono o'clock with a verdict for plaintiff for £75. 1 .'. Mr. Myers moved for judgment. Mr. Gray" applied for leave to move for . judgment on tlioyegal questions involved. His Honour said that he could not enter judgment until the question of costs had been settled. Leave to defendant's counsol to move for judgment would bo reserved. Mr. Myers: I presumo that the whole matter will stand over. His Honour: That is so. ,ALLEGED SLANDER. - VERDICT FOR THE ; DEFENDANTS. .The caso between Emily. Millicent Styles,-' of. ' Wellington, •• spinster (plaintiff), and Michael Clieoyers, of Wellington, settler, and Violet, Cheevers, his wife (defendants): — a claim for damages for alleged slander— was then heard. . : ;-Mr. Bolton appeared on behalf of tho plaintiff, and Air. \\ilford for the defendants. A jury of four, of ivh'oni Mr, A'. Ellor was chosen foreman,: was empanelled. Tlio statement of claim set forth for a first courso of,- action against tlio defendants jointly that plaintiff was an unmarried woman and a domestic worker. On January 30, 1903, defendant, Violet'Cheevers; at her dwelling-houso, .situated in - Wordsworth Street, ; well-knowing the premises and intending to injure the : plaintiff- in her good name and roputation falsely and maliciously spoke and published of the plaintiff in the presence and within tho hearing of Cecilia Trainor; certain words, and for a second cause of action against the defendant Violet Cheevers it was set forth that she,' in July,; 1907, at Bell's match factory, Adelaide Road, boing then unmarried falsely and maliciously published of the plaintiff within tho hearing of Cecilia Trainor other words' making allegations against/plaintiff. Wherefore plain; tiJf claimed in respect of tho first cause of action the sum of £250 against the defend-, ants jointly,/and in respect of tho second cause'£2so against', defendant Violet 'Cheevers alono.' ■ ■ .- As a defence to tho action, it was pleaded that the words in question wore never'uttered on any occasion. Plaintiff, ii evidence, stated that she had been iu her present situation for seven years.' Beforo taking proceedings, she had offered to accept, a public apology, through tlio newspapers.. : Cecilia Trainor was-also called. ; This closed tlio case for tho plaintiff. . Evidenco for tho defence was given by tho defendants and Virginia. Williston. Counsel addressed the jury at length. Tho jury, • which retired at 5.10 p.m., returned at 6 p.m. with a verdict for defendants. Judgment was ontered up for,tho defendants with 20' guineas costs, and witnesses's expenses and disbursements.