MASTERTON CASES.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1230, 12 September 1911, Page 2

MASTERTON CASES.

CLEAX SHEET OX CRIME SIDE. ALLEGED SLANDEII. PLAINTIFF STATED TIIAT HE WAS TERMED A "DliOl'l'Eß." A "clean sheet'- was the slate of ■'/fairs as regards the criminal fide of the Supremo Court sessions, which opened at Mastcrton yesterday before his Honour the Chief Justico (Sir liobert Stout). The civil cases wore accordingly proceeded with. . J. H. Langlcy, bricklayer, claimed from A. 0. Lovien, tailor, a sum of .£2OO for alleged , slander, llr. 11. O'Leary, instructed by Mr. G. H. Cullen, appeared for plaintiff, and ilr. 11. C. Robinson lor defendant. Air. O'Leary' briefly stated the broad features of his client's ea^e. Joseph H. Langlcy, pjaintilf, stated that ho had known tho deleiulani Levien for a number of years. Last Jlay he had leased a cottage from him in Church Street, Masterton. Levien was agent lor tho Order of Druids, He (witness) did not take immediate possession. On Juno 7 he mot Levien in (Jueen Street, in front of Groombridge's shop. Witness was then in company with Herbert and Arthur Jones. Lovien stopped liini, and said: "Joe, what about that house?" Witness replied: "If it is tho rent you want, you eau have that monthly." Defendant replied that it \va_s not a question of rent, but went on to stato that it had been brought up "at a meeting" that wilness was a "dropper." Witness thereupon retorted that Levien was a liar, 110 also added .that a man named Elder had a room in tho house, and ho "was a member of the lodge." Levien replied that the statement iiad not been made in the lodge, but before a committee. Ho (witness) asked for the name of tho person who had mado the accusation, and Levien mentioned a man named Gourlay. Witness remarked that lie know a member 6f the committee, and know that it was not so. He then ottered to return the key of tho house, stating that he would have nothing to do with it. Witness asked if it was not Brown (tho policeman) who had told him, and he also asked why Levien had gono through the promises. Defendant then said: "You'aro a dropper, and everybody knows it; if not, why haven't you shifted into the place?" Witness understood a "dropper" to mean a person who was selling liqnor about tho place, 110 had never sold liquor, and had never been charged with an oifence. Tho Jones's would bo within hvo or three feet' of Levien when lie mado tho statement.

To ?lr. Kobinson: Before issuing tho writ he had an apology, and a letter was received through Mr. Kobinson, expressing regret that the words should have been taken to bear the construction which witness placed upon them. He (witness) would not accept that as an apology. It was quite true that he had been in tho company of the Jones's on several occasions. Ho had even been in the Jones's house on one occasion and ho was aware that they had been convicted of certain offences. There was no ill-feeling between witness and Levien. When Levien stated that the matter of the "dropping" had been brought up at a meeting, witness's actual .words were: "Don't make yourself a liar."

Re-examined by Mr. O'LeaTy: Tho Jones's were not really friends of his. The reason why ho had won in their company on tlio night in question was that they had been engaged in arranging ijbout ft drag for a football team. Herbert Jones, painter's labourer, deposed that on the evening of June 7 Levien said to Langley: "what about that house, Joe?" Langley replied: "Is it the rent you're getting at? If it is, I'm -to pay monthly." Lcvicn replied that it was not the rent, but it liad been mentioned at a meeting that' tlio house had been.used for "dropping."- Langley aslccd for the name of the person who had mentioned tlio matter at tho meeting, and Lcvien mentioned the name of Gourlav, Langley asked Lcvien if it was not Constable Brown who had told him. Lcvien replied that it was not. Tho father said: "You know you arc 'dropping,' Joe, everybody knows it." Cross-examined, witness admitted that ho had been convicted for various events, and had been sent to Wellington. Sir. O'Leary: But your trips to Wellington have not affected your hearing? Witness: Not in the lc-ast. (Laughter.) Arthur Join'?, describing himself a canvasser, gave evidence. •

His Honour, after hearing addresses by counsel, said ho was of opinion that the plaintiff must be non-suit.nl. 110 was not satisfied that Section 196 of tlio Licensing Act did not apply. At the same time, ho would not give his decision on this point. He regarded the remarks of the defendant as privileged, by reason of the fact that they were addressed a 9 a result of a conversation on a specific subject. The plaintiff would bo non-suited, with costs on tho usual scale.

CARTERTON SLANDER CASE. A case was then called on in which F. W. Burling, farmer, of Carterton, claimed from T. Olliver, farmer, of tho samo place, a sum of .£5Ol for alleged slander. Mr. C. A. Pownall appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. F. E. Maunsell for the defendant. Mr. Pownall briefly stated 'the, alleged basis of the action. It was alleged that, oil tho night of May 13, in the main street of CarteTton, the defendant, in a loud voice, and in tho hearing of others, called the plaintiff a rogue and a thief. After hearing a number of witnesses and counsel, his Honour summed up in favour of defendant, stating that the case was a family squabble, which should never have come to Court. In the whole of his forty years' experience he had never heard of such an action for slander. The jury, after a retirement of forty minutes, returned a verdict for plaintiff, nnd awarded ,15 damages. This was entered up by the Judge, who awarded costs on the lowest scale.