THE SLANDER CASE.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume LXIX, Issue LXIX, 4 May 1915, Page 7

THE SLANDER CASE.

' This case~was, resumedUMsmdniuig, The last witness was* Walter Standish, of Hirstlands > farmer, who, said'thai he knew Patrick' Corrigan; and Had -ihet Mrs Carroll* recently^. Had'had conversations with Corrigan, from-time to time. The farm which* witness had i adjoined the one Corrigan waß oh. Last winter he was gcing in.a dray to Normanbjv and met Corrigan between the Cemetery road ;.nd Normanby. Pulled up and started to talk During the conversation Corrigan' mentioned the Carrolls, and the action of a man who had unsuccessfully endeavored to force iiis company on, Mrs Carroll. Corrigan said that after this he started to Jiang round Mrs Carroll, and that later on he had committed improprieties with her. Witness detailed a further conversation he had some time later Corrigan in Hawera in reference bo the subject matter of the present case, and" that he (Corrigan) had said that he "put all the dough in," meaning, witness took it, the v necessary money Corrigan then referred to .a meeting of witnesses, when Mrs Stewart said that "Jack was not coming (and 'Jack ' he took to mean Mr Carroll), that he had pulled out." Witness asked Corrigan how he could bring an action against' Garden if Garden had seen him. Corrigan replied: "Let the old -J— prove it." He then went <on to say that he had the parson and the "bobby" on his side; that he stood to make .£2OO, and that it:was better odds than horse-racmg. He (witness) had no interest in this case; he merely knew Garden as Mr Garden, of Normanby, and was not a friend of his. Mr Sellar: I put this conversation to Corrigan, and he absolutely denied every word of it. What are you prepared to say? • ■ f\ ' Witness: "I recollect it just as I have told you." To Mr ODea: Did not do Garden's ploughing;, nor did Garden do his Mr ODea: Did you tell anyone that you did not know what you were being brought here for? * Witness: No, not exactly. I evaded all enquiries so far as I could. Continuing, witness said he might have told Mr McKoy that he did not know what he was being brought to the Court for, and that he had nothing to say. When he told Corrigan of the report about his conduct with Mrs Carroll. Corrigan had ridiculed it. ' To Mr Sellar: Last Friday night Mrs Carroll came to see him at his house, and wanted to know what he had to say about the case. He told Mrs Carroll that he could only say what he had to say in the witness box Mr Sellar: What did she say to th.it?

Witness: She said she had the case won, she thought, excepting for my evidence She further asked whether what-I had to say vas not to oblige Garden. I let that pass. I didn't care about answering it. Mr Seilar: As a matter of fact, are you saying it to oblige Garden ? Witness: No

Mr Seilar addressed the Court at some length under three headings— (1) the question of privilege, (2) the question of character,'and (3) the question of justification. He claimed that the communications to Butler, Carroll, and Hadler were absolutely privileged •and that to Arehbold should also be treated as privileged. The only one about which there might be some doubt was the communication to Edwards, and although he would like to ask that this should also be considered privileged, he would not be inclined to strain the doctrine of privilege, but would leave that entirely to the Court. As to character, it was obvious in law that no one could succeed in any action for damages to character unless it were shown that he or she had a character to lose. He reviewed the evidence at some length to show that Mrs Carroll could not succeed in this case. As to justification he submitted that, on the evidence, the Oourj> could come to one conclusion only; namely, that there was rfb doubt at all about the truth of the whole matter.