Supreme Court New Plymouth.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XVII, Issue 2952, 15 October 1891, Page 2

Supreme Court New Plymouth.

Tuesday, October. (Before His Honor Mr. Justice Gonolly.) CLAIM FOB ALLEGED SLANDER. Thomas Lloyd v. Cornelius Oasey. Mr. 1 Barton, of Hawera, appeared for plaintiff; c Mr. Samuel for defendant. y The statement of claim set out was that c defendant had publicly slandered plaintiff, 8 by publicly stating that be had committed 6 an indictable offence: that he (plaintiff) r had burned down his house, which was 5 insured m the North German Insurance t office for £100. The amount of damages ° claimed was £500. The defence was a general denial of the allegations. c The jury was : — J. Elliot, Jno. Martin, 4 M. Mansen, and S. A. B. Capel. it Mr. Capel was selected as foreman. i. Mr. Barton, after opening the case, b called g Benjamin C. Robbins, who stated that c he was a storekeeper in partnership with I, Mr. Pierard. The plaintiff wftS'in their i. employ for 18 months or two "years, but >. not continuously. He was working for s them in March last. Witness remembered the fire taking place at Lloyd's house. He saw the defendant at the shop between a fortnight and three weeks' after tha fire. He had not seen him to speak to some months before that. A conversation took place between them. There was no one else present at first, bat Mr. Pierard was in another part of the shop. Defendant came and said to witness that he had not , been dealing with them of late, and be } would not so long as they had that b y >* scoundrel working for them. Witness asked him what be meant, and Casey replied that be supposed be (meaning 1 plaintiff) had been pitching them a fine yarn about his losses, the same as be had 2 done to other people. Witness said M yes, he told me he lost everything, except a 3 few garments and a sewing machine." Casey Raid " It is not so, I can prove it, Mr. Hunger borrowed an express from me and carted away three loads — and large ones at that — Mr. Hanger was afraid r * to take them down a cutting." Witness 9 said "It looked bad " and they then Q spoke about the fire, and Mr. Oasey ~ said, " I was in the house when .n. n some of the children came in, and said [? that Lloyd's house was on fire, but, as ~ there was no noise or shouting, I said D ' nonsense.' " Mrs Casey looked out of the ;!j; !j window and said, "Mv God, it ib bo, go d over and help them." I went, and found 5>5 > Mrs. L'oyd standing quietly in the road, '• and found that everything was packed !5 and oat in the back garden. Witness k asked bow be thought the fire occurred. 16 He replied " That there was no doubt as n to how it ocoarrsd." Witness said " Mr. n Lloyd told me that Mrs. Lloyd was out }t in the garden working at the time it w occurred, and that they surmised that it 3>3 > must have occurred from the kitchen fire D by accident." Defendant laughed and p ° said, " There was no doubt that it was an r > accident, he is a d scoundrel." He >c then said, " I see by the papers that the a place was insured for £100." Witness n said, "Yes; what was the value of the y house ? was it not worth £100 ?" His ?» reply was, " Not by a long way." Witn ness remarked that Lloyd did not do so 16 bad, if the house was not worth £100, and n everything was saved." Oasey again said, " Tes ; all things were got out of the house, and packed in cases, even to tbe crookeryware, and down in the garden." Mr. Pierard came forward then and joined in the conversation, which tcok a similar turn as stated above. Mr. Pierard remarked " that a coat must have been burnt, as plaintiff had an order book of , c theirs in his pocket that was lost." No 3 f farther conversation took place about the a fire. <j Cross-examined— Plaintiff was still , r working for them. He did take notes at ,(; the time. [The notes wera produced, t . rsad^aad'pat in.J The conversation took >• place about 11 o'clock in the morrimg, 18 and he wrote the notes between 7 and 8 3 o'clock in the eyening. He bad taken a : . copy of the notes, bat had not frequently 3 freshened his memory with them; he )r read them over last evening. It was at > 8 Mr. Barton's suggestion that be made a ;s; s copy of the conversation. Mr. Lloyd did y not owe them any money. He bad not a had a difference with Mr. Casey about Q some horses. The defendant had not I dealt with them since the fire ; be had )a ceased to deal with them up to within a two or three months before the fire ; this v was when Mr. Lloyd came in to worn 3 for them. Casey did not, on the oocasion c of the conversation, ask for his bill. He l( came in about a fortnight later and asked c for it, bat he did not owe anything. The Q shop boy was somewhere about the shop 1( at the time of the conversation. Witness ,' never spoke to the boy about tbe converv sation with oasey. | Frederick Pierard also gave evidence as t to the conversation that took plaoe in j their shop between Robbins, Casey, and ■ himself. 3*3 * Cross-examined— He had a look at the 3 note two or three days ago. He saw Mr. 3 Robbins reading it this morning. t Theodore Fitzsimmons deposed that he was in tbe employment of Messrs. Robbins J and Pierard. He remembered seeing Mr. j Casey come into the Btore shortly after the fire. Witness was cleaning the shop | window, and he heard part of the conver- , sation between Bobbins, Pierard, and } Casey. He heard Casey say that Lloyd ( had all the things paoked up in tbe yard, , and that he (Casey) would not come into , tbe shop while that d— — d scoundrel was ( there. He also beard Lloyd say that it ( was quite possible that the fire was not an ( aocident. i Cross-examined — The conversation took 1 place about 2 o'clock in tbe afternoon. Thomas Lloyd, the plaintiff, was called by Mr. Barton, who tendered him to i Mr. Samuel for cross-examination, bat Mr Samuel had no questions. Charles E. Major stated that he was agent of the North German Insurance Company. He had an insurance risk of £100 on Mr. Lloyd's house. He had a conversation with Mr. Casey after tbe fire, in High-street, Hawera. Mr. Casey began the conversation by asking him if he had paid Lloyd the insurance money on the property that bad been burned. Witness replied " No." Oasey told him that Lloyd was a scamp, that this fire had been meditated^ by him, and that there were a lot of articles in the garden ready to cart away, and that he himself had carted away one or two loads. Witness made a statement to Mr. Barton of the conversation. Cross-examines — He had not tbe slightest knowledge of any ill-feeling between himself and Mr. Casey. This was the evidence for the plaintiff.' Mr. Samuel, after opening the cage for tbe defence, called . '■ " Cornelius Casey, the defendant; who stated that he lived in a cottage not far from where Mr Lloyd's bouse stood before it was burnt. He could not remember tbe conversation that took plaoe on 25th March, in Messrs. Robbins and Fierard'a shop. He went into the shop and asked Mr. Robbins if he had big (witness') account made oat. Bobbins looked at the book, and said it was settled. After some conversation about the account, either Robbins or Pierard mentioned about a fire down witness' way. Witness replied that there was, and he said be heard that everything was burned. Witness replied that everything bad not been burnt, and Ihe was surprised when he saw the repor si 1 in the paper, for bis horse and trap re moved two loads of the furniture. Mr.- 8) Hanger had borrowed it and carted the farnitare to his hoase at Normanby. Mr. ~ Bobbins said Mr. Lloyd did not lose all c the things, and witness replied that be did

opt f think so, as bis boys went up when the house was burning, and saw tba baok part empty and tbe fnrnitnre ont in the garden. Pierard said that their book had been burnt. Witness said he was sorry, and that Lloyd was in bis (witness's) house some time ago, and bad stated tbat be could get his bouse bnrnt at any time and no one know anything about it. Mrs* Casey replied, "That if the place go 6 bnrnt then sbe wonld know who did it." Lloyd then said, "Oh, I did not mean it." This was all the conversation abont the fire, and they then talked abont some horses. Witness wanted to know what yarns Lloyd had been pitching to them about the horses. Mr. Pierard said Lloyd had told bim tbat witness bad left bis gate open for them to go into his paddonk. Witnesß said, •• He most be a scoundrel to say I left the gate open and took them into a paddock tbat I had saved for hay." He did not say anything about tbe fire^ not being accidental, nor did he say, " I have pot been dealing with yon lately, nor will I as long as you have that d ■ sconndrel in your employ." Witness did not say that it was all arranged or any* thing to that effect, and be did not men* tion Mrs. Lloyd's name [Witness also denied having made other statements.} He did not say anything to Mr. Major to tbe effect that anything of any value was ' packed and ready to take away before the fire. He did not receive any letter either from tbe plaintiff or his counsel before the action was taken prior to this. Cross-examined: Daring the conversation with Bobbins and Pierard he did not intend to convey anything that was derogatory to Mr. Lloyd. He did sot know that he had been anything other than friendly with the plaintiff. Mr. Barton : Have yon any illwill towards Mr. Lloyd ? Witness: No. Mr. Barton : What made you use the words " be must be a scoundrel ?" Witness : I did sot mean anything ; I would use the term td a friend. Gross examined continued: Ha did not try to get a police proeecution^against Lloyd: He did not make a statement at the polica station, Hawera. He did not go for the special purpose of making the/^ statement. When he left home he had\, no notion of going to the police. He^ was asked by Sergeant Qainn to make tbe statement. By His Honor; Tbe first intimation he bajLjbf the action was by a paragraph • in the Ideal paper. T-bis was tbe evidence for the defence. The above is the Tacaoaki News report of the case. A telegram published yester* day gave the verdict £250 and coats.