MASTERTON DISTRICT COURT.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 291, 2 September 1908, Page 10

MASTERTON DISTRICT COURT.

The District Court continued its session on Tuesday before his Honour Judge Hasel-' den, the case taken being that of A. H. Hewitt, settler, of Masterton; v. W. J. Eossitor, settler, of Cross' Croek, a claim for £105 ss. damages for trespass and conversion of property. In the alternative tho claim was to recover tho sum of £55 ss. as money agreed to be paid in consideration of plaintiff giving up possession of the business, at Cross Creek known as the "Barracks" Boardinghouse, and in addition tho sum of £50 damages for trespass, and.conversion up to April 27, the date of the agreement; and as ■ a further alternative to recover tho said £55 ss. as damages for breacli of agreement of April 27, and in addition £50 as damages for trespass and conversion up to April 27. There was not a great deal of evidence, ttte defence being a denial of trespass, and allegation of partnership between the parties; also, that .plaintiff voluntarily-'gave up possession. The jury found for plaintiff 'for £10 damages for trespass, and also for return of deposit; Judgment was suspended until argument was heard on law points for trespass, and also for return of deposit. Charles H. Gayfer, stock dealer, Carterton, applied for his discharge. Mr. Pownall acted for applicant. The District Official Assignee stated that at the first meeting of.creditors it was decided to hand back to the debtor his property valued at about £50: This was not confirmed at a later meeting. His Honour said he did not favour the class 'of trading to which tho bankrupt had been a i party although'.it' might bo .considered "good business." 'He suspended tlie discharge for 12 months, not as a warning to .bankrupt only, but to..others. Tho Bankruptcy Court looked' upon such trading with disfavour. '

Tho District Court continued its sitting yesterday, before Judge Haseldcu, when Alfred Geange, settler, sued Frederick W. Jones, settler, for £100 damages for slander. The .case was taken without a jury. Mr. \l'ownall appeared for plaintiff, and. Mr. Hoilings for defendant. Mr.. Pownall; said tho object of the proceedings was not. to seek 'exemplary .damages, but.to make tlje,defendant" eai'his words." Alfred Isaac peangc, plaintiff, was called, and repeated the words uttered by defendant on tho doorstep' of the Club Hotel about 9.15 on tho morning of May 8. There'had been,a difference between tho parties over a horso.'bclonging .to defendant. Witness had been' defendant ; in a' civil action brought by plaintiff in respect, of tho horse, judgment going in witness's favour. Frank Vincent Gully, station-hand, and Beethoven Algar, messago boy, said they heard the defendant malio uso of the words complained of in tho statement of claim. Mr. Hollings, for tho defence, contended that on tho statement of claim and on the evidenco, there was no cause of auction. .'He applied for fa r.ou-suit, first on the ground that the words only uttered a suspicion, and as such were not actionable, though to print them was. Secondly, counsel contended that the very : words used by'defendant had riot been- set out :in- the -statement of claim. A further ground was that special > damage must be proved unless the words were actionable per se, which he submitted they were not. Ho did not propose to' call evidence, and • relied . upon tho nonsuit' points. : Mr. 1 Pownall addressed the Judge, arid contended that the words were actionable per se. Ho submitted that ■if persons allowed themselves to get in a passion,l and make uso of slander, they should be made to bear the result. His. Honour, in giving judgment, said ho could- not withdraw the caso from a'jury; and as a jury lie considered' the 'words used contained a direct imputation of crime. He did not weigh the indecency of the language which had not been denied; Judgment was given for £5 damages, and £7 lis. costs. Mr. Hollings gave notice of appeal, and liis Honour fixed security at £20.

Francis Glanham Richards and Vincent Richards, of Masterton, carriors, trading as Richards Bros., sued. Levin and Company, of Masterton, merchants, for tho sum of £31 4s. lid., or,- in tho alternative, tho sum of £106 4s. lid., or, as a further alternative, they claimed from Georgo C. Summerill, merchant, -the sum of £48 165., or, in tho alternative, £123 16s. Tho statement of claim set out that defondant Sununcrill, cither for himself or for Levin and Company, agreed, ■ in September, 1906, to subsidiso plaintiffs to tho extent of £50 a year for threo years in a mail contract to To Wharau. Plaintiffs woro induced to enter into such contract for three years .with the Government, and the subsidies having fallen into arrears, and defendants refusing to pay them,* the plaintiffs claim the amounts set down cither as owing or in damages. Mr. H. C. Robinson appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr. C. A. Pownall and Dr. Trimblo for defendants. His Honour only hoard evidence for plaintiffs, as Mr. Powiiall moved for a nonsuit, on the ground that no enforceable contract was established, and for other reasons a nonsuit was entered '.with costs.

After this an application was hoard for a new trial in Kennedy v. Miller. Mr. Hollings said tho chief ground for the motion was that the verdict in issuo ro violenco was against the weight of evidence. He also argued that the jury had been misdirected, inasmuch as ,no issue had been put as to whother an assault had been committed, and tho jury had practically declared by their verdict that plaintiff was a trespasser. Ho also contended that under tho Police Offonces Act even forco could bo used to eject a trespasser. Tho motion was dismissed with two guineas costs.