SUPREME COURT.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLI, Issue 9419, 15 February 1913, Page 5

SUPREME COURT.

falmerston-saturday

(Before His Honor the Chief Justice).

AN A.SHHIRST CASE.

The cus. »us heard at the Supreme Court this morning in which Stanley A. Liddicoat claimed from William A. Langworth £5Ol damages for ull<?ed slander. Mr H. R. Cooper ap|>earcd for plaintiff andyMr J. P. Innee for the defendant. The following jury was empannellcd: J. Bennett (foreman), G. Robin-son, YVm. Braddock, F, Grover, J. Hawthorne. J. Sweeney, C. Mardon. Wm. Dalton, R. Michie, G. Edward, A. Best, and T. Spicei. Mr Cooper, ojiening for plaintiff, allowed tho defendant accused him ot having committed some criminal offence by reason of which he was admitted to probation. Plaintiff is an assistant factory manager al Ashhurst and defendant a storekeeper. .Somo time during last, year plaintiff had heard that rumours were circulating as to hw character. He made enquiries and ascertained that, for some reason or other the defendant had used the words to the effect that plaintiff's name was on the police books and he rad to report himself fo the ixilioe, or words to that effect, to one Redshaw, meaning that plaintiff had been convicted of some criminal offence, ind instead of being punished l>v prison had been admitted to probation. A stigma .such as that was one calculated to do plaintiff harm. Plaintiff was keeping company with a voung lady and suddenly the friend •hit) between them stopped. ' This was early in 1912, and it appeared that defendant had told the girl's mother that plaintiff was on the police books. What defendant's reason for doing so was they did iu>t know, as plaintiff and defendant had been fiicnds. Owing to the time for the i suing of writs closing, plaintiff did not have time to write demanding an apology, but. he had seen defendant and he had no? ! <x>n given an apology. Counsel for defendant submitted thai counsel for plaintiff should alter hi* ?«tate. ment. of claim from October to earlv in 1912.

Mr Cooper asked whether it was neces >iry to bring- the girl's namo into tho case? Mr Innos: J don't raise anv obj«-ction to ♦ li.it. His Honor: Vorv well. Henry Rodshaw said he had a conversation early in 1912 with defendant in hi* •>|iop about 7 or 9 in the evening. Plain riff was keeping company with 'a voung l a ?j •. ant * defendant said. "I liave settled Liddicoat. I have told the girl's mother that he has to report himself to the police." \\ ltness understood from this that then >vas a conviction against plaintiff and h< was allowed out on probation. Wit no* did not repeat this conversation for sonic time till about three weeks ago when wit ness told plaintiff what had been said. To Mr I lines: \\ itne<- was a pet son n I .rietid of plaintiff'* an;l a casual acquaint nice of defendant'-. Had dealt at tli ■ latter s shop. \\ itness thought plaintiff would get into trouble if witness repeated tho com cr<at ion. \\ it noss k<*pt no roconi >f the words. Could not state the month during 1912. It might have l>een Januarv. Witness thought less of plaintiff after having heard the words spoken. I laintiff. in evidence, stated ho was manIgor of a cheese factory at Ashhurst. Knew defendant, with whom he had been the Ivy: of friends. In 1912 witness kept cotnpanv with a young lady in Ashhuret. There was •io engagement, and during the year the Tirl s mother stopped the acquaintanceship. Three weeks ago Rodshaw informed wit l 'if»>s of what defendant had said respecting him. Thi-> was the first he had heard of i'hi* matter, although witness knew somebody had slandered him, because he had !>oon "cold-shouldered" in Ashhurst. Wit ness made inquiries and received his information from the previous witness on a Satur day. He visited defendant on the Mondav and said he "wanted to settle accounts with him. Defendant asked how much it was, and plaintiff said he did not know. Plain tiff said: "I want to know where you got the information from that my nauie is in police books.'' Defendant said: "A man named Rowland Smith told me.'' Witness asked him why he reix-ated it. Defendant asked to whom he had done so. and witnev refused to tell him. Defendant did no: a|H)logise. but said it was a dirty thing t » say about a man if it were not true. Tliiwas all that took place except that witness said he intended to see tho constable ai Ashhurst.

Cross-examined, witness said ho did not know why the girl's mother objected to him walking' out with her daughter. There was 'no reason why defendant should have used the words. They were friendlv. and witness dealt at his shop. Witness did not demand an apology, and defendant, when witness saw him. did not offer an apology. This closed the case for the olaintiff. Mr Innes, opening for the defence, said defendant would flatly denv the statement made by Redshaw. lie asked why was not the mother of the girl produced," to whom 'he words were alleged to have been spoken? He submitted it was one of the silliest, trumped-up cases that had ever come before* a jury Defendant, storekeeper, of Ashhurst. admitted acquaintanceship with Liddicoat. \\ itness would swear 110 such conversation a« detailed by Redshaw took place. Plain tiff came to witness, asking him if he had ever heard of his name beintr on the police books, and witness replied that some years ago he had heard it from a man named Smith. Plaintiff then said, "Well, if it costs me £IOO I will make somebody suffer for tlys "

To Mr Cooper: Witness did not knov. where the man Smith was. Had had casual conversation with Redshaw, when the latter came into witness's shop. Redshaw's evidence was false, though witness had 110 reason 1 to suppose he was anything else than respectable.

This closed the case f(»r the defendant

Counsel then addressed the jury, after which his Honor summed up. The jury after a retirement of thff'tnuarters of an hour brought in a verdict for dffendrnt. with 00-ts according to scale. CLAIM FOR DAMAGFS. Percy Jennens and (,'lara Jane Jent:< n> claimed from the Railway Department the sum of £250 '(kimages for alleged injuria caused through plaintiff's hor.se shy in r and capsizing his trap on the Ashhurst road at a railway jigger lef* by servantof tlx> Department. The following jury were empannelled.— B. Thomson (foreman). R. Hastings. J. Halpin. and A. G. Sainsbury. Mr H. R. Coo)>er appeared for plaintiff, and Mr ('. A. L>ughnnn for the ('row 1.

(Left Sittincl