SUPREME COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XCVII, Issue 11289, 8 June 1897, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

Monday, June 7. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Denniston.) CIVIL SITTINGS. PROFFITT V. PARKER. In this case, which was an appeal from a decision in the Magistrate’s Court upon a case of expulsion from a racecourse, Mr Beswick applied for an adjournment. Mr J. B. Fisher not objecting, the matter stood over sine die. STRONACH V. MILLIKEN. In this case, a claim for .£ISOO damages, Mr Loughnan, for the plaintiff, applied for a further adjournment, as an important witness was beyond the colony. Mr Kippenberger, on the other side, consenting, the case stood over sine die. BARLOW V. WYATT. This case, a claim for .£IOO, or the transfer of property, was set down for Wednesday on the application of Mr Kippenbergor. •ORR V. HURLEY AND ANOTHER. In this case, a claim of £1033 8s 7d for money lent, Mr Donnelly applied for an adjournment for a fortnight, and Mr Russell not objecting the matter stood over. WHITTLE V. HENRY. In this case, Mr Kippenberger, for plaintiff, moved for judgment for £373 3s lOd, There being no appearance of the other side judgment was entered up for that amount with coats as per scale. ■ BUCHANAN V. WILLIS. On the application of Mr Russell, this case was adjourned for a fortnight. HOPKINS V, CLARK. appMed herein to fix a date for trial. Mr Joynt, contra , consenting, his Honor fixed July 12 as the date of hearing. IN DIYOECE. GRAHAM V. GRAHAM. This was a wife’s petition for dissolution of marriage, on the grounds of desertion and adultery. The parties were married in August, 1893, at the registry office, Christchurch, and lived together until Get. 23, in the same year, when, the petitioner alleged, her husband left her, and had not' provided for her or her'child since, i -Mr Kippenberger called the petitioner, Detective Madden;, and A. Donaldson, and his Honor made a decree nisi, • with' costs against the respondent. PULLER V. PULLER. This was a wife’s petition for dissolution of marriage on tho grounds of adultery and cruelty. The parties were married at Christchurch in April, 1895, and lived together at Christchurch and Wellington. Mr Stringer called the petitioner, Annie Wheeler, Dr Hunter, F. Whithair and Ellen Good, and a decree nisi was granted, with costs against the respondent. PRANGNELL V. PKANGNELL. On the application of Mr Stringer (for Mr Byrne) his Honor granted a decree absolute in Prangnell v. Prangnell. „ AT NISI PEIUS. FORSTER V. BEAUCHAMP. This was a claim for £2OO for slander and assault. Mr Donnelly for the plaintiff and Mr Longhrey for the defendant. Mr Donnelly for the plaintiff, said the claim was for a slander uttered by the defendant to the effect that the plaintiff had gone into his house and had stolen a glass. He called. William Forster, who deposed that Mr Beauchamp had on the pavement outside the Cafe de Paris, of which he was the licensee, caught hold of him roughly and told him he had been seen taking a glass from the counter in the hotel, and had put it in his pocket, and repeated the statement in the presence of witnesses. He had endeavoured to get an apology, but had failed, and had therefore brought the present action. Cross-examined by Mr Longhrey: Mr Forster said he was in the Cafe with Mr Hinge at 10.30 a.m. on May 6. He did not see a man named Hoddinott there. He deniedhavingtouched any tumblers beyond the one he was using to drink from. E. F. Corley deposed that he met Forster in the Cafe de Paris on the evening of May 7, and went out to get him a paper. On returning with it he met the plaintiff and the defendant on the footpath outside the hotel, and he heard defendant say to Forster that he had been told that he had been seen on the previous day to take a glass from the counter and put it in his pocket, and asked Forster if it was true. Beauchamp had hold of Forster by the arm and was detaining him. On tbe following day he (witness) told Mr Beauchamp that there must be some mistake, as he was sure Forster would not have done such a thing, but he replied that he knew it was a fact, as Foster had been seen taking the glass. T. J. Eyan deposed that on hearing of the slander about Forster he went to Beauchamp and advised him to apologise to Forster for the statement he had made, as plaintiff was a respectable man. Beauchamp replied that he was quite satisfied that the theft of the glass had taken place and that Forster had better look out or he would get three months.

His Honor, in reply to Mr Longhrey, said he did not think that publication of the slander had been proved, as defendant had only repeated his remarks to Forster upon his distinct invitation before Corley. Mr Donnelly submitted that, the statement was not a privileged one, and contended that as the statement had been made in the public street it was publication.

Mr Longhrey asked for a nonsuit. He contended that words conveying only a vague sort of suspicion were not actionable, and quoted Addison on Torts to support his contention. He asserted that the plaintiff in his remarks did not impute actual theft, and they were not actionable. He further contended - that' the statement made was a privileged one, as it was made in the course of an investigation into a suspected crime. Mr Donnelly pointed out that no privilege had been pleaded, and urged that the cases cited by Mr Loughrey did not apply. He contended that the statement having been repeated in the presence of Corley, at the invitation of Forster, was a publication of the slander. He submitted that a technical assault had been proved by tbe detention of the plaintiff by the defendant in a hostile manner. He further argued that the facts as disclosed did not justify Beauchamp in putting his hands on Forster, and also submitting him to the indignity of charging him with theft. Mr Loughrey then called George E. W. Beauchamp, the defendant, who deposed that he was the licensee of the Cafe de Paris. He was informed by a man who was drinking at the bar that a man was seen to take a glass from the counter and put it in his pocket, and he was advised to go and catch the man at once. When he went into the bar the man was gone, and from a conversation he had with the barman he allowed the matter to drop at the time. On tho following day both the barman and barmaid pointed Forster out as the man who had taken the glass. He followed Forster out of the bar and touched him on the shoulder, and told him that he had been informed that he had been seen taking a glass from the counter on the previous day, and asked him if it was true. Forster became excited, and called Corley to hear what was said. He only put his hand on Forster to call hia attention to what he had to say. In cross-examination by Mr Donnelly : He did not take hold of Forster, and there was no struggle. E. F. Corley, re-called by his Honor, said that when he saw Beauchamp he had hold of Forster’s arm. His Honor said he had no hesitation in discharging the charge of slander. The defendant had had reasonable ground for believing" that the plaintiff had taken the tumbler, although nothing was shown in

the evidence to . inculpate Forster in any way. Beauchamp had a perfect right to stop the plaintiff in the street and tell him what he heard, and ask him if it was true. The repetition of the statement to Corley was at the request of Forster, who wished that person to hear the statement, in order that he might contradict it, and speak as to his character. As to the assault, the evidence was slightly conflicting, and as Corley was the only independent witness, he must assume that his version of what took place was correct, and that a technical assault of a most trivial character had been committed. He would therefore give judgment for plaintiff for 20s, but would allow no costs. The Court then rose. LAW NOTICES.—THIS DAY. IN CHAMBEES. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Denniston.) Re William Sibbald, deceased. For letters of administration. Mr Joynt. -Re Charles P. Duncan, deceased.—For probate. Mr Eolleston. -Be William Traill, deceased. —For probate. Mr Helm ore.[Per Press Association.] AUCKLAND, June 7. John Douglas pleaded, guilty at the Supreme Court this morning to six charges of theft and one of forgery. Sir Theo. Cooper pleaded for a lenient sentence, pointing out that the prisoner, on his own. confession, was disgraced and dishonoured for life, and that the punishment inflicted by the Court would be but a small portion of the anguish he must necessarily suffer. He explained that Douglas had lost his money in a timber mill speculation. In passing sentence, Mr Justice Conolly regretted seeing a man in tho, prisoner’s position, who had hitherto borne a very good reputation. Ho also regretted that he was compelled to add that prisoner’s reputation had been • obtained entirely through false pretences. None who associated with accused, believing him a man of integrity and strong religious views, could have an idea that , for two years at least he was carrying on systematic robbery. A. sentence of five years’ imprisonment on each charge, the sentences to run concurrently, was passed. . , _At the Supreme Court John M’Kcnzio, who used the strangling hold on Constable Bailey, was sentenced to eighteen months’ imprisonment. Mr Justice Conolly said that he was sorry to see that the practice of garrotting was becoming known to the criminal classes in the colony. WELLINGTON, June 7.

The criminal sessions of the Supreme Court opened this morning before Judge Edwards,, whoso charge to the grand jury occupied only a few minutes. His Honor said that though there were a large number of cases on the calendar none were of a serious character, and it was gratifying that with one exception, cases of violence against the person were absent. His Honor briefly refei’red to tbe charge against a Chinaman for a breach of the Bankruptcy Act in not keeping books, and pointed out that if Celestials elected to go into business they must conform with tho Act. Dibb Ido, for the theft of a bicycle, was brought up. under a conviction of last session, which was upheld after an appeal to the Court of Appeal, and sentenced to three years i hard labour. The accused had several previous convictions in New Zealand. and Tasmania.- The charge of attempting to murder., against Entwhistle will be taken next week. Robert Lovett, who stole £94 worth of jewellery from Messrs Wilkins and Feild, and took. it back next . morning, pleaded guilty, and said that he was under the influence of liquor. He was discharged on his own recognisance of £IOO to come up for sentence when called upon. Margaret Anderson pleaded guilty to three charges of false pretences and theft of small amounts, and was remanded for the report of the Probation officer. Henry Eigg and Edward Eyan, old offenders, were convicted of breaking into and entering the premises of J., Jack, wine merchant, and sentenced.to three years’ hard labour. William Gillespie pleaded guilty to a number ofeharges of forgery and converting postal orders at-.Masterton for sums from £ls. to £IOO. He was remanded for a week for tbe probation officer to make inquiries. , Bail, was allowed in two sureties of £IOO each. E. M. Harwood pleaded, guilty to forging two orders, and also was remanded for the probation officer’s report. The charge against David Elder, accused of stealing a suit of clothes, was postponed till next session owing to the illness of the prosecutor. George Dixon, alias Thomas M’Carty, was acquitted on a charge of stealing a horse, saddle and bridle at Taueru, near Masterton.