LIBEL ACTION.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXII, Issue 7718, 15 April 1887, Page 2

LIBEL ACTION.

Wellington, Thursday. The libel action Macmahon and Leitch

v. Evening Post, was heard this morning' before Mr Justice Richmond and a special jury. The claim was £1000 damages for publishing a statement on January 'the 18th to the effect that upoil the plaintiff's departure for Fiji there were a good many inquiries after them; whereby, ft- was contend, that the defendants meant' Messrs Leitch and Ma'cmahon had absconded to evade payment of- their just debts and - were' insolvent. The defence denied that ■ the words were libellous or that they bore the meaning imputed ' to : them, "aria! pleaded that at the time of the plaintiffe"- < ' departure they were indebted to n, number ■ of persons in Wellington, and that several persons had made anxious inquiries at the office of; the Post as to the plaintiffs" whereabouts. ' • George Leitclr said. he had been, in- * 1 partnership with ' James Macmahon, anil I had written, as an author, under the name of " George Leitcher Walker." Ho I was the responsible manager of the firm. After finishing their last trip they lefb Auckland for Fiji. . .■•■'- Asked .by the forenian of the 'jury if they took ' a return ticket, witness said "yes." Further questioned he said they; '.- had a special . complimentary ticket at, •' single fare. ■' •■ - , '■■ . -.--.'. : Witness resumed'-. A. copy of the Post „ containing the paragraph was posted to plaintiffs. It was known to the residents of Suva that such .a ."par" was in existence and he was spoken to about it. . Ho. and Macmahon thought they had betterget back, and the 'latter went to Sydney . to counteract the effect of the par there. They were tii have opened there at Easter, which' was. the best time ; of year for theatrical business. . Valued his service* at £25 aweek^ The meaning he attached to the paragraph was that they (plaintiffs) had run away- to Fiji to avoid payment of - their debts. . .''.-'".''•!■ ; ' ' ; Cross -examined:' ' Witness and Mac-'---inahon always went through the accounts together with the manager. Had paid; 'their accounts , in , Christchurch before . coming to- Wellington. :_;\Vas'. not a^va^•e - that an account" from t\\&Lyltdtbn Times had been sent up to Wellington for collection to Mr Bishop after they left Christ- . church. Had employed Mr Gillon to do -•. business for them, but had only made one 7 attempt to see him an hour before leaving Wellington. Gillon had, not sent in.au . account. They left, £5 id the bank to settle a disputed claim by Cottrell and Young, but nothing to meet the other dis- • putod accounts. The rest of the examina- . tiqh was devoted to ascertaining witness's : knowledge of the various', accounts.. He .;, stated generally, that all. accounts .had „ been paid before leaving except those. ill- -.'' dispute. Went to Fiji goriest and quiet, v .thinking it was a place where they would,.';. ri6t"bo botliered by telegrams and letters. • The property men haoT^no authority' to obtain goods without an. order from the management. This finished the plaintiff's examination, .' ,

For the defence it was contended thai!"- . the interpretation pnfc. "by the, plaintiffs • • upon the paragraph in the Post was not so strong as that set forth in tlie plaintiff's deciaration,,-where the meaning attributed was that the plaintiffs Were insolvent and had absconded, and after some- argument ' ; the declaration was amended. • . The witnesses for tlie defence,.tvere, E» T.Gillon; editor of the Post'; Cottrell and ■ Young, carriers ; and- H. Fielder, and M. \ , Eller, upholsterers. .•'-' , . E. T. Gilloh stated that after the appear- . ance of the alleged libel he had received a . ■ cheque for £20, out of £25 to /which he had reduced his claim upon the represen- " tation of the.plantiffs that they, liadjhad . ■ a bad season; tlioiigh he. considered the. ... services he had rendered, really worth -- £50/ The' £5 balance, he. had. sned >.'•'. for and .recovered. Witness had had v many in'qujrjes as to : >yhat had become ■ of; tlie plaintiffs —r'ai'norigst.' others. from' : : Eielderj' -who said timt'fheybH'e"dhim'£2B. i - pottrell and Young stated their account f t hacl' been first - disputed; • but', aftenvards,; .; admitted. . by., .the. .plaintiffs'.'. business^ ,', manager, Mr Wise'inauj' to. be 'fair, ami <■ ■ proper. Eventualljf tliey'had 'taken,-. £5;: ;, after the plaintiffs le|f, the colony, because they saw no hope of getting 1 the remainder.. H. Fielder said :he hail/ no recoil feetioti; „ of .having told the'editor of ,tlie 7?os*.that the plaintiffs wenfawdy owing hiin;iC2B.-' ,v M. Eller's testimony was miiinpbvtant'. , ' ; ! It was urged for the defence: that the> ./ words' complained/Of did not and were not ■ '

intended to mean more than that the, tie'-, v parthro, of Leitch and Macmahon tp Fiji would have the .effect of preventing sncli ; creditors as. had claims . getting : , their- ( money, not that the plaintiils had; gone , away' for .the express purpose, of avoidinjy'; nayinent. """ . • ''• 'j ■'',-' ' ; The )\\\y after retiring for thvee-qnarters of an 'hour returned with a verdict -for. the., plaintiffs, 'damages £150. The/Judge allowed;'costs on the lowest scale." J ' ■ ;