SUPREME COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXI, Issue 7227, 29 April 1884, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

Monday, April 28. (Before His Honor Mr Justico Johnston and a special jury of twelve.) DUNCAN AND ANOTHKB V. BOC-TII AND OTHKHB. Mr Harper appeared for the plaintiffs. Mr Garrick appeared for the defendants. This was an action to recovor J3IOOO for libel. The libel consisted of certain words contained iu a protest sent in by the defendants to tho Agricultural and Pastoral Association against tho plaintiffs being awarded a prize for implements. Tho parties are both Christchuroh firms dealing in and manufacturing agricultural implements. The words of the protest were: " We protest against tho result of the judging in the implement class on the ground that one of the judgos was biassed In favour of Messrs P. and D. Duncan. We are prepared to provo that there was collusion between Mr Webster and Messrs Duncan previous w the judging." Tho defence was to the effect that the protest had been made in good faith, in the full belief that the statements contained in it wvre true, and without any malicious motive. Mr Harper opened for the plaintiffs, and called the following evidence : Michael Murphy, Secretary to tho Canterbury Agricultural and Pastoral Association : Plaintiffs and defendants were exhibitors last November in the* Implement class. Mr Webster was a judge, with five or six others, in that class. Produced a protest signed by the defendants. It was in a book lying on the counter in witness' office. It was open to any one asking to make a protest; whether an exhibitor or not. It did not lie open on the counter. The protest wa3 written by Mr Booth in witness' presence on Nov. 9. Witness subsequently sent defendants notice that a meeting of the Committee was to be held on Nov. 20. Meantime witness saw Mr Booth at the office, and said it was a pity the thing had occurred. Witness pointed out that the word was a strong one, and, as Mr Booth said he did not mean it in the dictionary sense, advised him to write to the Committee stating what he really did mean. Subsequently the Committee received a letter to this effect. At the Committee meeting Messrs Booth, Ross, Scrimgeour, and P. and D. Duncan attended. A resolution was passed to the effect—" That the protest be disallowed, and that the Committee regretted that remarks had been made reflecting upon one of the judges."

Cross-examined: I produce a record of what took place at the meeting; it is taken from my rough minutes. (The resolution •was read to the above effect.) I think Mr Booth was not in the room while the plaintiffs were in. The evidence on either side was taken while the other side's witnesses were excluded. Neither party cross-ex-amined the witnesses of the other. Mr Webster was not present at any enquiry. I recollect both plaintiffs and defendants were exhibitors in 1881. Booth and Son was the firm then. In the course of conversation Mr Booth said that the word " collusion " did not convey his meaning. My notes are not a full report of what happened. I only jotted down a few headings. The Agricultural Association is considered an important Association, and great rivalry exists for favourable awards. As far as the outside public were concerned the protest book was private. If any one came into the office and asked to make a protest, I should hand him the book. All the protests ■were made by persons interested in the exhibition. It is important that the judges should not see the exhibits before the show. It would be very improper for the judges to attempt to find out who were the exhibitors. On some machinery the marks cannot he obliterated, as they are indelibly branded. Mr P. Duncan is on the General Committee.

Ee - examined: The prize tickets are affixed in the morning of the second day of the show. Plaintiffs were beaten by Messrs Eeid and Gray in 1881. Peter Duncan, one of the plaintiffs: Commenced business in April, 1866. Had always exhibited since 1868. Had exhibited at Timaru, Dunedin, Invercargill and Wanganui. Had 54 entries at the last November show. The defendants exhibited the same class of machinery, and had about 86 entries. Witness took the prize for the highest number of points. It wasa4o-guinea cup, presented by Mr Peter Cunningham. Had gained the Mayor's cup in 1871 for the greatest number of points. This was the largest prize that had been given. Knew Mr Webster, formerly a blacksmith, now a farmer. Saw Webster to speak to about 20 minutes past 1 on Nov. 8. The judging was not finished, but it was during the luncheon hour. Saw him on Nov. 9 in Lichfield street. Some of the judging had then to be done. Had known Mr Webster 24 years. On the Bth witness went to the Show Ground, at about 6 o'clock, and returned to the town about half-past 7. Arrived again at Show Ground about a quarter to 10, and remained till evening. Was marshal in the class of cooking ranges. Saw Mr Webster come on to the ground about half-past 11. Was in attendance on the judges of ranges. Simply said " Good day" to him in the luncheon- tent. Did not speak to him again till about half-past 8 next morning. Knew Eoss and Scrimgeour. Eoss was in witness 5 employ for about six months in 1881. Scrimgeour and witness -were in partnership in 1866 till about 1868, and was then foreman in the shop till 1882. Saw them both on tho show ground early in the morning and when the judging commenced on Nov. 8. Mr Eoss stood near a small greenhouse ten or twelve yards from the ploughs. The judges were at work on the ploughs. Saw Scrimgeour in several places. On resuming at a quarter to 2 p.m., Mr Harper said he had now to state that the defendants were willing to consent to a verdict of 403, and £75 costs, apologising at the same time for the expressions they had used. Mr Garrick remarkod that the defendants regretted that their protest had caused the proceedings. The jury found a verdict accordingly, and his Honor gave judgment for 40s damages, and costs .£75.

The Court then adjourneduntil 11 o'clock on Wednesday morning, when tho case of Fuchs v. the Union Steamship Company will be taken.