Supreme Court.

Evening Post, Volume XXXII, Issue 128, 14 October 1886, Page 3

Supreme Court.

* CIVIL SITTINGS. This Dat. (Boforo Mr. Justico Richmond and a jury of four,) JOIINHON V. BLOWEK. This was an action in which Clmrle* Johnson, billiardmarker, sought to recover t!io Hum of JJSOO, iih damagOM for alleged slander by Benjamin Blower, licensee of the (Queen's Hotol. Tho case for the plaintiff was that on the 17th of last month ho wan in the employment of Mr. Alfred Wakoford, of tho To Aro Hotel, and that on that dato the defendant. s lid to Mr. Wukeford, within tho hearing ol o'Jiors,' " I passed your placo (moaning the To Aro Hotol) the other day, and waa going t ) will iv for a drink when I saw tho dd — — 8-,-oundrel (moaning tho plaintiff) in tho bar, aid I would not go in. Ho (meaning the plaintiff) is not a fit man to be an^ respoctablo person's servant, becauoo ho is not honest. He is nothing but a thief." In uoincc|iionoe of these statements Mr. Wakeford discharged tho plaintiff from his service, whoroforo plaintiff claimed damages from tho defendant. Tho defendant, in his written statement of defonoo, gave a genoral denial of the allegations of tho plaintiff, but said that if tho words woro used they woro usod in the oourso of a private conversation with Mr. Wakoford and in reply to questions by the l.ittor, and woro therororo privileged. Mr. Jollicoo appeared for tho plaintiff and Mr. Travurs, with whom was Mr. Skcrrvtl, for tho dofouduut. Alfrod Wakeford deposed that tho plaintift was in hit) employ (us billiard-marker on the 17th of last month. Witness was in tho Duke of Edinburgh Hotol on that day, and while there ho met Mr. Blowor, Mr. Freeman, uiid Mr. McClelland. Mr. Blowor said to witnods, " I saw that d — thief in your house. So long us you keep him thero I'll novorgo into your house." Mr. Blowor wont on to mako an a -cußation against tho plaintiff. This was tho first timo plaintiff had been in tho bar (it tho To Aro Hotel while witness had had it. Plaintiff wont into the bar because tho Imrman had gono to see the football match. Tho plaintiff was the porson alluded to by Mr. Blower. When witnoss roturnod to the To Aro Hotel, he told tho plaintiff that lie would Huspond him, as ho did not want to koop a thiof . Plaintiff had boon receiving 25s a week and his board and lodging. Plaintiff had proved a very good servant. Witnasa understood that the prosont action had beon brought by plaintiff to vindicate li)H charactor. If tho plaintiff vindicated his ehaructor, tho witnoss was proDarod to take him buck. Plaintiff waa Viio bost servant he had oyor had. In oross-cxamination witness said that Mr. Blower refcrrod to plaintiff as "that follow, Johnaou." Witnoaa did notboliovc Alt. Blowor when ho said that plaintiff was it thiot. Ho had not suspondod plaintiff, so that plaintiff might bring an action against Mr. Blower. Witness had no ill fooling whatever ugaiiibt Mr. Blowor. William Henry M'Clellnnd, bootmaker, sometimes acting as a bailiff, deposed that ho was in possession of tho effects in tho Uuko of Edinburgh Hotol on tho 17th Sop(ember. Ho heard tho lat>t witness and Mr. Blower speaking about some one in tho To Aro Hotol. Mr. Blowor mado somo remark which reflected on that porson, but witness uonld not rooolloot tho oxaot words. Ho hoard Mr. Wakeford say to Mr. Blowor that tho latter should not speak liko that about the man. Chus. Johnson, plaintiff, doposed that beforo ontering Mr. Wakeford's service ho was in tho defendant's omploy. He recollected tho 17th of last month, tho dato of tho accidont to Mr. Scott, of the Central Hotel. In tho af tornoon of that day witnoss was placed in charge of tho bar at tho To Aro Hotol. When ho loft Mr. Blowor's sorvice he had woino words with Mr. Blowor, who had boen paying him 15s per week and commission at tho rate of 5 per cent, on tho takings in tho billiard-room. Whon ho was leaving ho told Mr. Blowor that tho lattor owed him £4 7s Cd. Mr. Blower gavo him £4 10a, and ho handed tho barmaid a half - sovoroign for a drink which ho and Mr. Blowor had together. On getting tho change ho gavo Mr. Blowor 28 6d. Ho then said to Mr. Blowor, " I beg yonr pardon ; I'vo mado a mistake You owo mo £4 17s 6d instead of £4 7s Od." When ho pointed this out to Mr. Blowor, tho lattor said, " You havo to giyo me back £1. I gavo you .£1 too much." Witness said, "How so?" and Mr. Blowor ropliod, " Yon ought to know." Mr. Blowor further said, " You borrowed £1 from me." Witnoss said, " I did, but I paid you back " Mr. Blowor thon said, "You'ro a d liar." Witness said, "Do you recollect I gavo you .61 that I got from a Maori." Mr. Blower said he did not recollect. Witnoss wonld not pay Mr. Blowor another pound, and Mr. Blowor would not givo him 10a additional. The .81 which witness got from the Maori waa given to him by the Maori becauso he had taken tho latter to the Colonial Mnsonm. By Me. Travora — Witnoss borrowed another pound from Mr. Blowor on tho racocourse He had also repaid that amount. It was not true that he had holped himself to cigars without Mr. Blower's permission. This closed the case for the plaintiff. Mr. Travcrs submitted that the langnago proved was not notiomble per se. His Honour held that "the words attiibutod to the defendant by tho witness Wakoford wero oloirly not actionable per is. Ho thought thore was nothing at all imputed by tho words in question. Thero was nothing at all like crime imputed by tho defendant's words, and he could not hold that thoy wero slanderous. The words "damn thief" appeared to have beennsed in anger, but were explained by what waa said immediately after. Tho plaintiff must bo nonsuited, oosts to follow the finding of tho Court. Tho jury-were then discharged. Mr. Jelliooe observed that the defendant had courted litigation. Mr. Travora said that his learn--d fiiond had no ri^ht to make suoh a remark. If Mr. .TeUJooo, in asking for a written apology, ha&njloted the words set foiuh in the statemeniof tho plaintiff, the defendant would at once ha,vo eaid that he did not use them. His Honour said that tho words in tho statemont before the Court woro liable to misle -.d. They gavo one the impression that tho plaintiff had been guilty of ombozzlement, wfcich was not the case. Mr. Travora odmittfd that the words set forth in tho statoment wore clearly actionable, but thoy \roro not borno out by tho evidence. Mr. Jellicoo observed that the ca 0 had beon brought for tho purposo of vindicatiii" the pjaintiff's oharacter.