Permanent link to this item
THE COURTS-TO-DAY, Issue 15674, 12 December 1914
.SUPREME COURT,—CIVIL SITTINGS. (B.'foig His Honor Mr Justice Sim and a Jury of twelve.) His Honor sat at 10 o’clock this morning to resume the hearing of the case Waters, Ritchie, and Co. and J. E. Evans v. T. B. Shiol and Co., a claim for £751 damages for libel. Mr A. S. Adams and Mr J. C. Stephens appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr W. C. MacGregor for tho defendants. Evidence was given on behalf of tho plaintiffs by G. B. Creamer, J. B. Waters, J. E. Evans, Ik T. Ritchie, H. A. Otto, E. F. Dutliie, D. Muirhead, A. Montgomery, J. Sneddon, W. Riley, A. Lindsay, F. Archer, J. Hnlligan, and F. Farley. Mr MacGregor said the defence was that the words in. the letter written by the defendants to the Canterbury Farmers’ Co-operative Association did nob moan what they wore alleged to mean. Tire substantial defence was that the charges wore cither true or were privileged. The plaintiffs’ report was not a fair and true report on the condition of the chaff. Whether it was true or not, the defendants said that they were privileged in the letter they had written. They had a common interest in the matter ; and the letter was written in good faith relating to the condition and quality of tho consignment of chaff in question. Ho asked the Jury to put themselves in the position of Mr Shiol and to consider the .state of mind he was in at tho time ho wrote the letter, and say whether the terms used wore not terms that might honestly have been used under the circumstances. The language, used, although strong, was not malicious, but rather evidence of Mr Shiol’s good faith. He actually believed what he was paying when lie wrote the letter. It was admitted in evidence that the defendants bought the chaff as prime ami that the chad' supplied was not prime at all. Not one bag ol the consignment, in fact, was equal to the sale note, and it was rightly rejected by the defendants. Naturally Mr feliiel was not pleased when ho wrote to the Canterbury Farmers’ Association. The extraordinary thing was that although tho plaintiffs were now forced to admit that a portion of Iho chaff was rubbish there was not a suggestion of it in their report, so it came bark to what Mr Shiol wrote—-that the man who reported <m it was either ignorant or mendacious. The language used in the letter was a genuine opinion of the whole transaction. Evidence was then calk'd on behalf of the defendants, and further bearing of the case was finally adjourned until .Monday. CITY POLICE COURT. (Before If. Y. Widdowsnn, Esq.. S.M.) Drunken Ui'fviices. —A female first offender was convicted and discharged. Three male first offenders were, fined os. in default 24 hours. William George Reeves was fined 10s, with 1 lie same alternative. and George Edward -Smith was remanded for seven days for medical treatment. —.Joseph William Gcorgcson. who had been three times previously convicted within six month.-., was ordered to como up for sentence when called upon, he. attain statute that lie wished to go lo till; front. Remanded.- -George Mostyn nas remanded to appear on Tuesday on a charge of using obscene language in the bar of licensed premises, to wit, the Excelsior Hotel.—Accused, who pleaded not guilty, was allowed hail, self in £lO and one surety of £lO. A Warning.—Andrew Henry appeared on remand in answer to a charge of being deemed to be an idle and disorderly person, in that he had insufficient lawful means of support.—W. M. -Hive risen gave evidence as to having employed accused mi piecework. His average earnings during the past three months had been 9s 10d per week.—Accused declared that lie. had been working for others as well.—The Magistrate, tend that it appeared that accused had been living in a manner in which ho had no right to be living. On the evidence he would not he able to convict, but the prosecution would servo as a warning. A Mutter for the Judge.—Christina Barlow wa.i charged with escaping from the Caver.sha.in Reformatory Institution. —T'he Magistrate said that he understood that accused was not formally an iranato of the home.—Senior 'Sergeant Dart said that lit! proposed to offer no evidence. Ho thought accused was npt an inmate within the meaning of the Act. She v.-aa convicted of forgery, and was ordered by Mr Justice Sim to come up for sentence when culled upon, a condition being that she would ho called upon if the did not remain in the home. With the concurrence of His Worship ho proposed to hold accused until they knew His Honor’s pleasure in tho matter. —The Magistrate decided that he had no ]>ower to deal with the case. Remanded to Invercargill.—James Arthur Pollard was charged with stealing at Invercargill a lady’s silver watch and brooch (total value £2 15s fid) the property of Elsie Crisp.—Chief Detective Herbert stated that accused was "arrested yesterday by Detective Sergeant Connolly and Detective Hall, when a portion of the articles stolen were found in Ills possession.—Accused was remanded to appear at Invercargill. More Serious Charge Pending.—Allan M’Donah! was charged with being deemed to he an idle and disorderly person in that ho had insufficient lawful means of support. —Chief-detective Herbert said that accused, who was arrested yesterday by Detective Sergeant Connelloy aiid Detective Hall, had, since his arrest, been identified ns a person against whom it was desired to prefer the more serious charge of assault and robbery.—A remand was granted until Monday.* By-law Case.—Joseph Carter was fined 6s and costs (7s) on a charge of permitting a horse to wander at large. Truancy.—John Charles Walters was fined 2» bn each of three charges of failing to send his children to school.
THE COURTS-TO-DAY, Issue 15674, 12 December 1914
Use these buttons to limit your searches to particular dates, titles, and more.
Print, save, zoom in and more.