LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXV, Issue 9090, 26 June 1888, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT.—Civil Sittings. Monday.

[Before His Honor Mr. Justice Gillies and a common jury of twelve.]

Libel Action.—George White v. James MOKKLL METCALFK AND BESSIE MKTCALVE. —This was an action to recover £1000 damages for alleged libel. Mr. Humphreys appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Mahony for the defence. Mr. Humphreys opened the case, and read the statement of claim and defence. The statement of claim set out that the plaintiff was an accountant, carrying on business as an accountant in Auckland. The defendant, J. M. Metcalfe, was a gentleman of means, residing in Kaipara, and Bessie Metcalfe was his wife. On or about the 27th of December, the defendant, Bessie MetcalA, wrote and published a letter to one H. N. Warner, in Auckland, containing tho following words : —"He failed in a most disgraceful way at home." The defence was a denial that on the 27th of Decomber, ISB7, or on any other date, he published a letter containing these words. The plaintiff, it appeared, was the promoter of the Civil Service Supply Association, in which the defendant, Mr. Metcalfe, desired to take shares, but he afterwards desired to withdraw his name. Tho plaintiff, George White, said he was introduced to Mr. and Mrs. Metcalfo in December last, at the house of Mr. Warner. At that time witness was manager of the Civil Service Supply Association, and Mr. Metcalfe had applied for 15 shares, and paid a deposit of £7 10s. Mrs. Metcalfe asked witness to purchase groceries for them as that would save them money. He purchased goods to the extent of about £9, and forwarded them, Mr. Metcalfe having told him if lie sent them to tho Helcnsville station he would call and pay., Ho did not do so, bub received a letter from him saying that if witness applied to Messrs. Hill and Mahony, they would pay him, provided they were satisfied regarding the association. He applied to them. He did not get the money ; but he was blackguarded by Mr. Hill. He subsequently got the money in April this year, but he had paid for the goods himself previously. While defendant, was manager, Mr. Metcalfe applied to have his name taken off the list of shareholders, and made can aflidavit stating that the names of directors published were published without their consent, and that they were not shareholders in (lie association. His Honour interrupted Mr. Humphreys and said this could have nothing to do with the case now before the Court, an action for publishing a libel, and they were not trying the association. In further examination witness said he was a colonial produce broker in London for '20 years, and turned over a large amount —as much as £-100,000 in a month. Ho was also for 1(5 years Mincing-lane broker for the N'ew Zealand Loan and Mercantile Agency Company. In December last he was shown a letter by Mr. Warner. A muti lated letter or portion of a letter was handed to the witness, but Mr. Mahony objected to it in its present form, and it was ruled that it could not be received. Witness said Mr. Warner showed him the whole letter, and subsequently gave him the portion which referred to him. It was not true that he failed shamefully at home. On the contrary, after 34 years' successful trading, he gave up everything ho possessed to his creditors, and his wife followed suit by giving up £5000. His fellow-brokers, to show their kindness, presented him with £■250. Witness came to Auckland in lKSti. and started the Civil Service Supply Association in March last year. The association was a success. Witness left the association a short time ago, being requested by the directors to do so, and they spoke to him separately and jointly in reference to the slander. Mr. Wilding, Captain Daldy and Captnin Worsp spoke to him separately. Mr. Humphreys : " And have you suffered in consequence of this libel?'" His Honour :" What libel? No libel has been proved." Examination con-tinued—-Mr. Warner was defendant's father-in-law, and the leading deacon of thoßeres-ford-stroet Church. His Honour said that if a document, was in writing it must be put in evidence, but a mutilated portion of •i document, could not be admitted in evidence. Witness said that in consequence of a letter shown him by Mr. Warner, lie brought this action to clear his character, and obtain damages. In crossexamination witness said he left London because he lost his capital, and could not carry on business. He denied that ho had " come, to grief more than once. When he carried on business he did not enter on speculations of his own, but had to make largo advances, as all brokers did. When the directors of the Civil Service Supply Association asked him to retire they gave three reasons : first, that they had losl i'nith in his management ; secondly, that ho was not financially in a good position ; and third, his failure to provide a guarantee. He went through the books with the accountant, who stated that his account.* were perfectly satisfactory. Horatio Nelson Warner, father of Mrs. Metcalfe, identified the handwriting of the portion of bhe letter as Miat of his daughter. Mr. Humphreys asked to whom it was addressed, but His Honor ruled that the address must bo produced. Witness said the letter was left at his house by the postman, and he showed it to Mr. White, as he at that time deemed it his duty to do so. At that time witness was a shareholder of the Civil Service Supply Association. He did not deem it his moral duty to inform the office-bearers of his church of the contents of the letter, and did not do so. In reply to His Honor the witness said the document in Court was only a portion of the lot , or he received, but it was in the same condition as when ho gave it to Mr. White. In cross-examination Mr. Warner said it was customary for his daughter to write weekly letters to her mother. W. 11. Lyon, merchant, gave evidence as to the plaintiff having carried on business as a colonial broker in Mincing-lane, and when ho failed nothing but sympathy was expressed for him. This closed tho plaintiff's case. Mr. Mahony said the ground of the action was a letter; no letter had been produced, and, therefore, the plaintiff had no case to answer. Mr. Humphreys replied, but his Honor pointed out that no document had been tendered in evidence. A document had been put in the hands of a witness, but to make it evidence it. must be tendered and put throuph the Registrar of the Court to make itevidence, and the plaintiff had failed to prove the publication of a libel. Whcro a libel was contained in a written document, the whole of the document must be produced, so as to show whether what was complained of was not qualified or explained, lie nonsuited the plaintiff, with costs on the highest scale.

Bank: of New South Walks v. the Auckland Investment Company and was an action to recover £•2745 7s Bd, money advanced. Mr. W. Coleman appeared for the plaintiffs. There were seven defendants to the action, five of whom had signed a confession; but the sixth (Mr. R. A. Isaacs) had left the colony, and there was no appearance on his behalf. Mr. Coleman ■ produced a consent, signed by Mr. J. B. Russell, who was acting for all the defendants, to have the case tried by His Honor without a jury, His Honor consented to hoar the case without a jury. Mr. H. B. Lusk, articled law clerk, employed by Messrs. Russell and Campbell, proved the bond and its execution by the defendants, Graves Aickin, Hugh Campbell, George Frasor, George Frazer, R. E. Isaacs, A. Kidd, and James Mason. Mr. Graves Aickin, one of tho directors of the Auckland Investment Company, identified the signatures on the bond, and the seal of the company. Ho produced a demand on the company by Mr. Ivey, the manager of the Bank of New South Wales. Mr. T. H. Ivcy proved that the defendants had loans and credits from the bank on the credit of ' tho bond, and that amount was still owing. Mr. Coleman said, with reference to the confession referred to, as a plea had boon filed and not withdrawn, he would ask for judgment against all the defendants. His Honor said he could have judgment against those who confessed on thoir confession, and judgment against the one who had not confessed on tho hearing in this action. Judgment was therefore entered against the defendant, Robert E. Isaacs, with costs on the highest scale.

Bank of Nkw South Walks v. D. H. McKenzie.—The claim was for £282 ss, on an overdue promissory note. Mr. Coleman appeared for the plaintiff, and said it had been arranged by consent to ask that this case might stand over till next sitting of the Court Adjourned accordingly.

Aixkgkd Slandkr: Cijas. Ross Cironmo>,ih:i.y Smith v. W. G. Allen.— act-ion was tried before a jury of four. The

action wus to recover £200 damages for alleged slander. Mr. Napier appeared for the plaintriff, and Mr. Tlieo. Cooper for the defence. Mr. Napier read the statements of claim .and defence. The plaintiff resided at Long Bay, and was captain of a cavalry company at the North Shore, and had held other commissions, and the defendant was a draper and clother carrying on business in the Victoria Arcade, Auckland. The allowed slander was that the defendant, on t>ie 16th of December, said to a Constable cm the Queen-street Wharf that the plaintiff was a thief, and that lie had been guilty of iarceny as a bailee, and asked him to arrest liim. The defence was a denial of the allegations. The plaintiff' deposed that he had been a customer of Mr. Allen's, and "the troop under his command obtained uniforms from him. Hβ accepted no responsibility, but said that if any trooper owed him for uniforms, if he reported the matter to him he would stop the amount out of the capitation, but he advised him to get promissory notes from them. On the 10th December witness was passing through the Arcade, when Mr. Allen rushed out, and said he would have no more b humbug, but must have that cheque. Witness told him he must be mad. Defendant followed plaintiff up Shorfcland-street to the Supreme Court, where he accosted him, and said, "W. G. Allen is personally on the track, and he does not leave you until he hands you over to a policeman for larceny as a bailee." Witness went to the Land Oilice, and then down to tho wharf, Allen still following him, and when there, defendant tapped him on the shoulier, and said ho would give him one more chance. Plaintiff said, " You had my answer, sir," and walked on. lie then saw defendant beckoning to Constable Mackay, and witness walked towards them, and heard Allen tell the constable to take that man (meaning plaintiff) in charge. The constable declined, and asked for some explanation, and Allen said in a loud tone of voice, " Take him in charge, he has taken my uniforms, sold them, and pocketed the money." A crowd colleuted, but the constable declined to arrest on such grounds. In cross-examination, plaintiff said that he had never asked for an apology. Mr. Cooper said he offered, on behalf of Mr. Allen a full and sin cere apology for what took place that day. Mr. Napier objected to this, and the cross - examination was proceeded with. The writ was not issued until March, and in the meantime! in February, Mr. Allen had obtained a judgment against the plaintiff. The difficulty was with regard to the uniforms of two men, which were handed over to witness, and ho handed them to other troopers to take charge of until they were required. Constable Mackay, of the water police, gave evidence corroborative of the plaintiff's statement as to what took place on the wharf. The jury brought in a verdict fordamages £10; costs were awarded on the lower scale.

Masefikld & Co. v. John'Lundon.—This was an action to recover £77 4s 4d, amount of a dishonoured promissory note. Mr. Campbell appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Tolc for the defence. The action arose out of charges in regard to the steamer Oreti, Waller being tho charterer and Masefield tho owner. The latter accepted from Waller a promissory note of John Lundon for £125, and he said the bill would be met, as the money was to come from the Government, in connection with the village settlers, and Mr. Masefield accepted the promissory note in payment. Mr. Waller was never witness's agent, but he placed the bill to Mr. Waller's counter account. The £125 bill was dishonoured, and he arranged to pay £50, and renew the balance. He got a bill for £75, and put it to Waller's credit, charging him with interest on the bill. Mr. Lundon was recalled by Mr. Tole and said he never paid Waller £50, never had a transaction in his life with him, and would not. As to tho £125 bill, he never owed Waller a shilling in his life. Mr. Tole addressed the Court, pointing cut that Lundon had been defrauded and received no benefit. Mr. Campbell replied. His Honor said that tho law was perfectly clear, that when a man signed for value received he was responsible. There was no doubt in his mind that Waller had defrauded Liuidcn and Masefield, and ono of the innocent parties must suffer. Judgment must therefore go for the plaintiff for the amount of the clftim, and costs on the lower scale.

Lawrence H. Levy v. M. Montague — This was an action to recover a sum of £10, amount of a promissory note. Mr. IT. Campbell appeared for the plaintiff. The defendant had left the colony, and w&s not represented. Judgment was given for plaintill", with costs, £1 lls.

James Larkin v. James O'Bries , .—This was a claim for dissolution of partnership and taking accounts. Mr. Tole appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Cave for the dofondant. The statement of claim set out that the plaintiff and defendant had been partners for 11 years as contractors on a verbal partnership, and wha& was now asked was a settlement of accounts. After hearing arguments, the matter was adjourned till next morning.

POLICE COURT.—Monday. i Before Messrs. C. D. Whitcombe vnd S. Y. Collins,

J.P.'S] Druxkknn'ESS.—John Symonrls and Ednurd Rhodes were fined f>s and costs or 24 hours' imprisonment. Symons also was ordered to pay 2s Gd cab fare. Incorrigible Rogue.—Kate Hinch was sentenced to six months' imprisonment for being drunk, and also for being an incorrigible rogue. Embkzzling. —James Goonan was charged with embezzling the sum of £3 10s on June 10, the property of Charles Ennis, of Te Awamutu, Inspector Broham applied for a remand to Te Awamutu till July '2nd. Bail was granted—self in £oO and two sureties of £25 each. Resisting this Police.—Joseph Marryatt was charged with a breach of the Police OlTences Act by inciting a drunken woman, Kate Hinch, to resist Police • constable Donovan while taking the latter to prison for drunkenness on Saturday nighfc in Albert-street. Constable Donovan stated the facts of the case, as to his taking Hinch into custody, and accused inciting her to resist. Sergeant Gamble gave confirmatory evidence, also stating he arrested accused, who resisted. Fined £5 and costs, or 21 days' imprisonment. Vagrancy. — Margaret Elizabeth Donnelly was charged with being in an unoccupied house in Abercombio - street, belonging to John Kerr, without lawful excuse, on Saturday night. Constable Hansen proved finding the woman in the house, and arresting her on Sunday morning. The owner of the house, Mr. John Kerr, also testified that he had seen her on the premises, and warned her not to come i there. Diecharged with a caution. Systematic Larcenies.—James Moore was charged with stealing, on three separate occasions, joiner's tools from the workshop of James Mays, Clarenco-strcot, Devon'porfc. Ho wiis charged with stealing a plane, valued at S.s, on April 2i. To this charge prisoner pleaded not guilty. There was a second charge of stealing three planes, 1 square, a gauge, and a valued at £1 7s, on May 5. To this charge the prisoner pleaded guilty. He was also charged with stealing a saw, bevel, and two planes, valued at £1 2s, on June 15. The prisoner pleaded, guilty. The first case was withdrawn, and the others proved. Thomas David Pain identified the property as belonging to Mr. James Mays some time ago, and that he missed them on June 22. Daniel Mendelsohn, pawnbroker, proved the pawning. Sergeant Gillies proved the arrest, and getting the tools from the pawnbroker. The Magistrates sentenced him to three months' imprisonment for each offence, the sentences to run concurrently. Breach of By-law.—Wong Gong was charged with a breach of the City Bylaws, by erecting a small wooden house at the rear of a tenament in Wakefield-streeb, without a permit from the Council. Mr. Cotter appeared to prosecute, and Mr. Earl for the defence, and pleaded "guilty." The house in question was a lean-to, for a wash-house. He asked for a nominal penalty. Mr. Cotter addressed the Court for the prosecution, saying that the object of the prosecution was to deter others. The Bench fined defendant 5s and costs 28s. Robbery. — William Noble and James Stewart, alias Stoddart, were charged with stealing money to the amount of £102 12s 9d, from the Naval and Family Hotel, corner of Pitt-street and Karangahape Road, on the 23rd instant, the property of Patrick Brodie. . Inspector Broham asked for a remand for a week. The case was remanded till July 2. Riding on Footpath.—John Hogan was charged with riding a horse along the footpath, Remuera road, on the 24th instant. The defendant pleaded guilty, and was fined 5s and costs.

Straying Horsk. — John Morton was charged with allowing a horse to stray in Stinley-street, on the 23rd. The defendant pleaded guilty, and was fined 5s and costs. Breach of Licensing Laws. — John Fraser was charged with a breach of the licensing laws, by allowing liquor to bo sold in his house, the Northcote Hotel, during prohibited hours—between ten p.m. on Saturday evening, June 9, and six o'clock on the following Monday morning. Mr. Baume appeared for the defence, and pleaded "notguilty." Mr. Broham appl'ed for a remand, to allow the Resident Magistrate to take the case. Mr. Baume objected, saying that one of his witnesses was going to Sydney by the next steamer. The case was remanded till Monday next.

[Boforo Dr. Giles, R.M.] The French Escapees.—The French convicts, Cury and Gasparini, were again brought before Dr. Giles, on remand, charged with stealing the cutter Martinet, from Noumea harbour, in February last, also with subsequent larcenies. The case was again remanded for eight days on the application of the Crown.