SUPREME COURT.—Civil Sittings.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 118, 19 July 1873, Page 3

SUPREME COURT. —Civil Sittings.

Monday, July 10. The civil sittings of the Supreme Court were opened yesterday, before his Honor Mr Justice Johnston. Of the cases down for hearing, the counsel informed his Honor that Miles v Fagan and Gilles v N. Z. S. S. Company had been settled out of Court. The first case called was one for SLANDER. Garrett Brennan v George M 4 Ewen. Damages, £SOO. Mr Hart and the Attorney-General appeared for plaintiff; Mr Izard appeared for defendant. Mr Hart read the declaration, and the Attorney-General opened the pleadings. According to the declaration, defendant, on the 25th March, 1873, accused plaintiff of feloniously stealing forty lambs of his at Palmerston, of which place both plaintiff and. defendant were residents, and of reiterating the charge subsequently. Mr Izard denied all the allegations contained in the declaration. Plaintiff, examined, said he was a sheep farmer on a small scale, at Palmerston, and resided about a mile from defendant, who was also a sheep farmer. There is a property intervening. Inconsequence of what he Had heard from his neighbours he spoke to defendant, in the presence of a man named McCarthy, and asked him if he was going to take any further proceedings against him about his sheep. Defendant said 4 4 No. I have done all I could.” Then asked him for a public apology. He refused to make one, and added, 44 You did steal my sheep.” Called on Mr McCarthy to bear witness to what defendant had said. The latter said he did not care if there were two present. In the February previously, defendant called at plaintiffs house to pay him some money. Told him then that he heard he had been endeavoring to get out a search warrant to look for his sheep at witness’s place, and that he would take the matter into Court. Defendant said that was what he wanted. Then told him that he had been endeavoring to injure him for the last couple of years. Asked him why he did not come and look for himself before defaming his character, and spreading slanderous reports regarding him. There was nothing to prevent defendant looking over his farm (160 acres) to see if his sheep were there. Had only thirtyfive sheep at the time, and immediately gathered them in, and upon counting them found the exact number. Mr Izard cross-examined, but without shaking plaintiff’s evidence iny any material point. Jeremiah M 4 Carthy, a resident of Fitzherberfcon, deposed that he was working on the Palmerston tramway with plaintiff, and overheard him ask defendant for a public apology. The latter refused, and added, 44 You did steal my sheep.” Had not heard the first remarks exchanged them. The words 4 4 public apology” first attracted his attention. Brennan then asked him to bear in mind what had been said. Coming down in the coach together, plaintiff and himself spoke about the case, but not about the language used. Neither before nor since being subpoenaed had there passed between them any conversation as to the particular words used. Upon cross-examination, the witness’s evidence was not shaken at all. Benjamin Smith, a neighbor of plaintiff and defendant, said that in March last defendant told him that Brennan had stolen his sheep. Had heard something which induced him to ask defendant how Brennan would get on with his case. He said he would stand by the consequences, as Brennan was the man he blamed for stealing his sheep. John Purcell, constabie at Foxton, stated that M 4 Ewen came to him at Foxton on the 7th February, saying that Captain Robinson had sent him to witness. Defendant then said that Garrett Brennau had stolen about forty of his lambs. Made the remark that it would be a difficult matter for any man to steal

forty lambs from their mothers at that time of the year, and through a narrow bush track such as Brennan would have had had to take them. He replied, 44 However, he did take them.” M 4 Ewen then asked him for a search warrant. He did not give him one, but sent him to Mr Dalrymple at Palmerston, and told him to call on the constable stationed there. In the month of May, witness served M 4 Ewen with a writ, and he said then that he would maintain in Court what he had said. J ohn T. Dalrymple, a settler and Justice of the Peace, at Palmerston, deposed that he remembered M 4 Ewen applying to him for a search warrant, as he had reason to believe that some of his sheep were in Garrett Brennan’s flock. He might say that he was certain that M 4 Ewen charged Brennan with stealing his sheep. After questioning M 4 Ewen, he refused to grant the search warrant. Witness declined to say upon what grounds he had refused to issue the search warrant. * This closed the case for the prosecution. After some discussion as to whether defendant was entitled to a nonsuit, on the ground that the plaintiff had never disproved the charge originally made, his Honor recalled Garrett Brennan, who said he never stole any of M‘Ewen’s sheep—had not seen any of them dead or alive for the last twelvemonths. Mr Izard then called, Defendant, who deposed, when asked if he knew plaintiff, 44 1 do; too Arell.” Plaintiff stopped him on the tramway and asked him if he was going to take some flour away from his place, knowing that he had no flour there. Then asked him if he wSs going to apologise for having accused him of stealing his sheep. Witness said he was not, and rGde on. Plaintiff then said, 44 Jerry, you will bear witness to that.” Had good reason to suppose that plaintiff stqle his sheep. Both their flocks had once been running together ; no one else was cognisant of his mark but plaintifl ; ,nd it was singular that witness’s sheep alone should be lost and none of plaintiff’s. His land was about three-quarters of a mile from plaintiff’s, with a bush between, which was full of tracks. First lost some ewes last year, between March and December. Was not positive that he told Purcell he would stick to what he said regarding Brennan. By the Attorney-General : Did not nse the words Purcell said he used as to Brennan stealing his sheep. Said to Purcell that he would not deny what he had said. Told Manson that he believed Brennan had taken Ms sheep. Was not in the habit of accusing people of stealing his sheep ; generally used the word 44 taking.” When asked by Brennan if he still accused him of stealing his sheep, had said 44 1 do.” Counsel having addressed the jury, and his Honor having summed up in favor of plaintiff, the jury returned a verdict of £SO damages against defendant. BREACH OF PROMISE. ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES. Johanna Josephine Casey sued Michael Maher for damages arising out of a breach of promise of marriage, which was admitted. Mr J. G. Allan appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Hart for defendant. It appeared from the setting out of the case by Mr Allan that defendant and plaintiff had been fellow servants at Captain Rhodes’s house, at Wadestown, and that being mutually pleased with each other, they had agreed to get married on the 20th October last. The time having passed, and defendant refusing to fulfil his pledge, plaintiff came before the Court for the assessment of damages she was entitled to. Denis Reardon said he knew Miss Casey about eighteen months. Thought her to be about twenty-eight years of age. She occasionally lived at his house. Heard her say she was cook at W. W. Taylor’s. Defendant is older than plaintiff. Had heard her talk about getting married to Mr Maher, but not of marriage with any one else. Frederick Wilson deposed that the plaintiff was in service at Captain Rhodes’s, Mr W. W. Taylor’s, Dr Johnston’s, and one of the banks. Mr Hart said he would shew that the injury done to plaintiff amounted to nothing; that, in fact, her position had been benefited, inasmuch as while the action was pending she had received a much more eligible offer of marriage than that from Maher ; and the second engagement was broken off solely because plaintiff would not withdraw from the action she had instituted. She had, moreover, admitted that she did not consider her matrimonial prospects prejudiced in the least degree by the action. After the respective counsel had addressed the jury, His Honor summed up, saying he never saw such a meagre case brought into a court of justice. There was no doubt she was entitled to some damages, but as none whatever had been proved, it would be for the jury to decide the amount. Nothing had been said against the character of plaintiff, •• but none called seemed to know anything about her, or

whether her feelings or prospects were in any way injured ; but it should be remembered that, although he made these remarks, the reputation of either was not prejudiced in the slightest degree. The jury retired, and after a short absence returned and asked his Honor what verdict would carry costs. The counsel having no objection to his answering the question, the jury were informed that any sum over 40s would carry costs—nothing under that amount, unless the grievance was wilful and malicious. The jury returned a verdict for Is damages. The Court then rose.