THE COURTS.

New Zealand Mail, 22 April 1887, Page 22

THE COURTS.

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Thursday, April 14. (Before his Honor the Chief Justice.) EMBEZZLEMENT. William Richard Waters was charged (1) that on the 27th May, 1886, he did embezzle the sum of £IOO, the property of the Northern Land, Loan, and Building Company, Limited j (2) that on the 20th July, 1886, he did embezzle a cheque for £l5O drawn in favor of the Company by Herbert P. Rawson; and (3) that on the 20th October, 1886, he did embezzle a cheque for £173 2s 7d, drawn by two Directors of the Company. . The prisoner pleaded not gmlty, and was defended by Messrs Jellicoe and Skerrett. Mr Middleton conducted the prosecution. The following gentlemen were sworn in as the jury :—William McLean (foreman), William Blake, Walter Marsham, * Frederick Harvey, William Bath, Charles Scott Henry Short, Samuel Morrell, Joseph Hene' Thomas Bills, Thomas Carr, and Richard A. Edwards On the application of Mr Jellicoe, the prisoner was supplied with a seat in the dock, as he was suffering from a bad foot. After Mr Middleton had opened the case for the prosecution, the following witnesses -were examined: — H. P. Rawson, surgeon dentist, W. H. Shore, clerk in the Stamp Office, George Mee ledger-keeper in the Wellington branch of the Union Bank, and C. C. Graham, Official Assignee, gave similar evidence to that which they gave in the lower Court. J. B. Harcourt, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Northern Land, Loan, and Building Company, deposed that the prisoner had admitted being indebted to the Company to the extent of £2500 or £3OOO, and that he could not meet the liability. To Mr Jellicoe : Was not prepared to say that Mr J S. M. Thompson, the previous Chairman of Directors, Bigned the receipt for Mr Rawson’s deposit. The bank slips were not as a rule placed before the Directors, but the bank book was always on the table, and could be examined. The agent of the Victoria Company had, he . believed, paid Mr S. Waters something on account of the fidelity bond given by the prisoner to the Northern Loan Company. By his Honor : When the policy was sold to Mr Skerrett there was no understanding that the prisoner should not be prosecuted. Witness had never compounded a felony in his life, and he had never promised that proceedings should not be taken against the prisoner. By Mr Middleton : The Directors had not prosecuted the prisoner. Alexander Johnston, M.D., one of the Directors of the Northern Land and Loan Company, said that the prisoner was not present at the meeting at which the question of giving a release was discussed. Edwin Henry ViviaD, late bookkeeper to the accused, was examined at some length, but his evidence was generally the same as that given in the lower Court. J. B. Harcourt was re-called by the foreman of the jury, and said that he had no knowledge that the Company’s moneys were being passed through Waters’ private account. Left all the details to Mr Thomp. son, who was the managing Director. Mathias Siegrieff stated that he had made a deposit with the Northern Land Company of £IOO, and received a deposit for the same. Raid the amount in cash, and was told at the office that it was all right. D. T. Stuart, accountant, deposed that he bad latterly been acting as Secretary to_ the Northern Loan Company. Had examined -the books, but could find no entry for the

deposit of £lO9 to Mr Siegrieff. To Mr Jellicoe : Did not find any fallacious entry by the prisoner. Had two interviews with Patrick Monaghan, the prosecutor, when he learned that that gentleman was willing to withdraw the case if his pocket was made right. \ . •' Henry Keraber, accountant, carrying on business in Wellington, deposed that he was employed at the end of last year to go through Waters’ books for the Official Assignee, and was called to givo evidence as an expert. . , , . Thomas W. Pilcher, jun., formerly a clerk in prisoner’s employ, was called, proved that two sums of money were paid into the Union Bank to prisoner’s own account by prisoner’s instructions. . William Widdop, called, deposed that he was employed occasionally by the prisoner to assist with his books. By Mr Skerrett: Had been present at several meetings of the Directors in the absence of Waters. The books were always at the disposal of the Directors, being in the safe in the Boardroom. Believed Mr Thompson was aware that Mr Waters was passing the Company’s moneys through his own account. None of the other Directors bestirred themselves aoout the accounts. This closed the ease for the prosecution. Counsel having addressed the Court, His Honor summed up. The jury would no doubt think it proved, he said, that Waters had received the £IOO from Mr Seigrieff, and as to Waters’ liability to account to the Company for the moneys he had received, it would be for the jury to say, m the absence from the evidence of express definition of a clerk’s duty in this sense, whether it was usual for such a person to account to his master for moneys received on his account. There was no evidence as to such a practice having existed. As to not paying moneys received into the bank, that was not of itself evidence of fraudulent misappropriation. All the other cir* cumstanoes must be considered. With respect to Mr Rawson’s payment, also, the question was, Did Waters intentionally omit to enter these amounts in the books. If that were so it would be a strong fact against the prisoner; the, question was, was the jury satisfied that it was ? Mr Vivian, who kept the books, was positive that he had received no instructions not to enter them. As to the matter of the release, his Honor said that if a servant of his having received moneys for him had failed to account for them, and that person’s friends offered to pay the moneys over to him, he (his Honor) did not know at all why he should not accept it and give a release. Mr Harcourt was clear that no promise had been given that would prevent criminal proceedings being taken. Of course the money could not be sued for civilly. It was clear that the Directors decided not to prosecute. Whether this was because they thought the trial would not improve their affairs; whether there were grounds for their not being unfriendly to Mr Waters j or whether the moneys had been so mixed up that they did not feel able to prosecute —was for the jury to decide. Reference having been made to Mr Monaghan’s conduct in taking up the prosecution, his Honor said if the jury were of opiniou that there had been fraudulent misappropriation, he did not think Mr Monaghan had done anything reprehensible ; it was not as though Mr Monaghan was a witness, or the case depended upon his evidence. The* Foreman asked what the jury had to do with the agreement ? Were they to say whether the agreement was valid or not ? His Honor said not in the slightest. Mr Middleton had not satisfied him that the Directors were not fully competent to give a discharge, and it really did not matter at all. The release might be an important matter, but he was not able to say that it was necessarily so. A person might give a disoharge from mixed motives. The release in this case was manifestly given because the frieuds of the prisoner were prepared to pay up the sum of money deficient. There was nothing improper or immoral in a master receiving such a sum. The only bearing the release had was this,*that if the jury found that the Directors abstained from prosecuting for the reason that they did not wish to prosecute a person who had been in their service, or that they did not think they were likely to get a oonviction in consequence of the way in which the business of the Company had been carried on, that, no doubt, would be impor. tant on behalf of the prisoner, because whatever attempt might be made to bring the matter fully before a Court of Justice, they might be pretty well satisfied that there were many matters the Directors had knowledge of that could not be brought out clearly. For instance, they did not know what Mr Thompson knew, or whether the Directors might have a good deal of information which would lead them to the belief that Mr Thompson must have known of the way m which the Company’s money had been paid in to the prisoner’s account. THE VERDICT—NOT GUILTY. The jury then (8.45) retired. At 9 o'clock they returned, and the Foreman announced that they found the prisoner not guilty. The verdict was applauded by the spectators in the body of the Court. _ On the application oE Mr Jellicoe, the prisoner was discharged. Saturday, April 16. (Before his Honor Chief Justice Prendergast.) SENTENCE OE CRABTREE, John William Crabtree, convicted of breaking from prison and burglary, was brought up for sentence. ... His Honor said he had fully considered the case, and recognised that prisoner was undergoing a very long term of imprisonment. If this were not the case he would probably pass a severe sentence on Crabtree for the offences of which he now stood convicted. Under the existing circumstances, however, it would look very much like persecution to inflict an additional long sentence. The sentence of the Court was that Crabtree be kept in penal servitude for a term of three years on each charge, the sentences to run concurrently. The prisoner was then removed. EORCIBLE ENTRY. In the case of Tamihana Kokika and son, found guilty of forcibly entering the premises of Ihaia Tahata, at Wkiknnae, and fined £5 each, or in defauL one month’s imprisonment, Mr Sh'vw, coun-

sel for the prisoners, applied to reserve the point he had raised for the Appeal Court. The point raised by Mr Shaw was that it had been proved that about 40 Natives were concerned in the proprietary of the land, and therefore the indictment should have set forth that the prosecutor was only part-owner. ' His Honor decided to grant the application. Judgment was therefore arrested until after the sitting of the Appeal Court. The prisoners were released on their own recognisances of £2O, each to appear when called upon, if the Court of Appeal upheld the conviction.

(united press association.) Timaru, April 19. The Supreme Court criminal sessions opened to-day. The Judge’s charge contained no Bpecial directions or comments. Thomas Rooney pleaded guilty to two indictments for forgery at Oamaru, and was sentenced to two years on each* xLliza Whitten, convicted of stealing, was sentenced to three years. John Gilmour, aged 67 found guilty of burglary at Oamaru, was sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment. The police said the man was unknown, but the Judge expressed absolute disbelief ln the theory of his being a first offender. Ihe appearance of the old man was not consistent. The prisoner defended himself with considerable skill in cross-examining. Grant and Anderson for committing burglary at Otepopo, near Oamaru, were sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, the Judge characterising them as a couple of thorough gaol birds. James Spratley, charged with perjury, was acquitted, as the indictment did not set forth the offence properly. Invercargill, April 19. The Supreme Court criminal sessions opened this morning before Judge Williams. The Judge congratulated the Grand Jury on the lightness of the calendar, there being only four cases —one of breaking and entering, one of receiving, one of attempted suicide, and one of rape on a young child. The Grand Jury returned true bills in all cases. Oh Wah, a Chinaman, who was charged with attempted suicide by cutting his throat with a meat-cleaver in consequence of a quarrel, was released on his father’s recognisance in £3O to keep the peace for six mouths. William Henry Irwin, charged with breaking and entering and stealing £2O worth of eoods from a store belongfng to Whittingham Brothers and Ins tone, pleaded guilty, aud was sentenced to two years. In the charge against Sullivan (a Malay, who has been a long resident in Stewart’s Island), for a criminal assault on a Native girl 11 years of age, the jury did not agree, and were locked up. Accused’s counsel endeavored to show that a section of the Native residents on the island had a grudge against Sullivan. h Wanganui, April 19. The Supreme Court Criminal Sessions opened this morning. The Chief Justice, in a brief address to the Grand Jury, merely stated that there were no cases calling for attention at his hands. No bill was found in tli© case of Johnston for rape, as the girl had been a consenting party. Angelique Therasse pleaded guilty to a charge of stealing a watch-ohain, and was remanded until to-morrow for the purpose of ascertaining what this historical character, as the Chief Justice called her, had been doing • since she was last coavictad of petty theft about four years ago. The criminal business is likely to finish to-day. The civil list is very heavy, and will probably take two weeks. „ _ . Timaru, April 20. C. and G. Parker and F. J. Slater were indicted for indecent assault on a young girl at Fairlie Creek. The theory of the prosecution was that George Parker was engaged to marry the girl, and. that Charles disapproved the match, knowing her to be unfaithful, and offered to test the girl s fidelity on a certain evening, while George and Slater should secretly observe. The result of the arrangement was the assault. Mr Joynt, for the defence, asked the Judge to exercise a discretion, and allow Charles, who was charged with the actual assault, to be tried first, and the other prisoners to be allowed to give evidence. Prisoners were acquitted. Invercargill, April 20.

J. Suleman, a native of Java, was sentenced to 10 years’ penal servitude for criminally assaulting a half-caste girl under 12 years, at Stewart Island. The first jury was unable to agree, and was looked up all night. The case was re-heard by a second jury this morning, which found the prisoner guilty, after 20 minutes’ consideration. This concluded the criminal business. Nelson, April 20. The Supreme Court criminal sittings opened to-day. The calendar was light, ineluding six cases, none serious. Judge Rich.mond, in charging the Grand Jury, said one case was interesting. A man was charged with forging two cheques (the drawee’s name being the same), which on the same night he passed off on two clothiers of the same name. The Judge said the Magistrate properly treated them as two distinct cases, and remarked that a question arose in this somewhat similar to that in the case of Regina v. Hall, viz., whether evidence in the one case could be admitted in the other. The English criminal law gave a prisoner a fair start like a fox or hare, and a jury were not allowed to look back into a man’s past life and see whether thirty years ago a prisoner was a naughty boy and bit his nurse. The jury could not agree in the case of G. S. Harp, for feloniously shooting a sheep, and were locked up till 9.30 in the morning. Amelia McGee was charged with setting fire to a dwellinghouse. It was alleged that she was interested in the place being destroyed, but it was evident she was under the influence of liquor at the time. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty. Auckland, April 20. Henry Perry, aged 16, was committed for trial for committing rape upon a child, aged two years and nine months, at Pakekepo. CIVIL SITTINGS. ■Thursday, April 14. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Richmond and aspeoial jury.) MACMAHON AND LEITCH V. THE PROPRIETORS OF THE EVENING POST. (Continued.) Mr Gully opened, the case for the plaintiffs at some length. He contended that the

paragraph in question was peculiarly adapted to injure persons in the position of the plaintiffs. It was in the form which was invariably applied to defaulters ; and to the plaintiffs, who had to make business arrangements in Australia, America, or England, it was especially damaging, because it was diffioult to counteract the effect of such statements as had been made at great distances. When the plaintiffs left Wellington they were indebted to Mr E. T. Gillon, the editor of the Evening Post, for having transacted some business of theirs in connection with the Opera House. The plaintiffs were not indebted to the proprietors of the paper, but to Mr Gillon. Mr Gillon, it appeared, charged the plaintiffs £25 for his services, and this amount was considered excessive, and considerable correspondence ensued between the parties concerned. Prior to leaving for Fiji the plaintiffs sent a cheque for £2O to Mr Gillon, who, it was alleged, had not sent in his account while the plaintiffs were in Wellington. The plaintiffs hoped that the amount would be accepted, or otherwise some amicable arbitration would have to be resorted to. A telegram to the following effect by Mr Gillon to Mr Wiseman, plaintiffs’ agent at the Thames, was read, the date of telegram being the same as that of the paragraph .-—Where are Macmahon and Leitch going to from Fiji ? Have left myself and many others unpaid here. To this Wiseman replied that he failed to see how Messrs Macmahon and Leitch could owe Mr Gillon any money, as a cheque had quite recently been posted him by them. He added that he should show Mr Gillon s insulting telegram to Messrs Macmahon and Leitch on their return. In answering this Mr Gillon regretted that Mr Wiseman should mix himself up on the plaintiffs’ side in the matter in dispute, The first witness called was George Leitch, one of the plaintiffs, who deposed that he was a theatrical manager for authors and actors. Was partner with James Macmahon in the theatrical business, which they carried on for about two years. During that period they had made four trips to New Zealand, the last one beginning in October, 1886. Played a season iu Wellington of about three or four weeks in November last, after which they went to Auckland. .Left that place on the 10th January, 18S7, for Fiji. Heard of the paragraph three weeks after arrival in Fiji.

The Foreman of the jury asked whether Messrs Macmahon and Leitch had taken a return ticket from Auckland to Fiji. The witness replied, that he haa. JSlr Claridge, the Union Company Manager, gave them a special complimentary ticket at single fare. Re-examined : There were other copies of the Evening Post at Suva beside the one sent to witness. When witness and Macmahon heard ef the paragraph they thought they had better get back to New Zealand as soon as possible. Witness returned to Wellington and Mr Macmahon and the agent, Mr Wiseman, went to Sydney to counteract the effect of the publication. By witness’ instructions a letter was sent claiming an apology, after which the second paragraph appeared. He then took action against the defendants, and he was obliged to remain in Wellington to carry it on. Witness looked after the stage arrangements, and Mr Macmahon looked after the financial business of the firm. Was to have opened in Sydney for a season at Easter, which was the best time of the year. Was unable to open there through this action. . Mr Macmahon could not carry on the business of the firm alone. Would not give his services as an actor to any manager for less than £2O or £25 a week. By Mr Travers: Was thoroughly acquainted with the financial business of the firm, and always went through the accounts with Mr Macmahon and his manager. His expenses upon their last season in Wellington was about £9OO, exclusive of author s fees. The salaries generally came to £l3O a week, sometimes a little under. The rent of the Opera House was about £3OO for the season, and their gas bill averaged about £lO a week. The remainder of the £9OO was made up of payments for orchestra, printing, &c. Was aware that Mr Gillon was employed to secure the Opera House. He (Mr Gillon) was undoubtedly deserving of some com. mission. Mr Macmahon had once asked Mr Gillon for his account in witness hearing- Although it was not within witness province, witness called in at the paper office to see Mr Gillon, for the purpose of seeing him about the account. That was the only occasion on which witness attempted to see Mr Gillon. Macmahon’s statement m a subsequent letter, that he had used energetic steps to see Gillon, was not true except in regard to the one occasion. Never heard that an account had been sent from the Lyttelton Times to Mr Walter Bishop m Wellington to be. collected from the plaintiffs. It was customary to leave money in the bank to meet any disputed account in any town they were leaving. Left £5 in Wellington to meet Cottrell and Young’s aceount, the only disputed one which they were then aware of. Was then aware that an offer of £8 in settlement had been rejected. Thought that the £5 was not withdrawn until the bank account was being finally adjusted when leaving Auckland. Had paid the accounts due to Mr Fielder before they left Wellington. Since he had returned to Wellington he had been sued by Mr Flocktou for a small amount, which he paid. As far as witness was concerned he would never have paid the debt, as the goods had been orderedbysomeunauthorisedperson. Mr Flockton could have put his account in during the season of the company, and he had acted in a very unbusinesslike manner in coming down to the wharf when the company were leaving. Was not aware that any account was due to a Mr Eller. Eller had told him since his return to Wellington that he made no claim—that he had lent two or three chairs on one occasion when tho Governor attended the theatre, for which he exDected some remuneration, but did not claim any. Left the settlement of Cottrell and \ oung’s account to Mr \Yiseman when the company left. Would say that the takings during Easter week in Sydney would be double those taken in a week in June. The proceeds at a popular theatre in Australia during Easter week would be about £IOOO, of which £6OO would be profit. Witness was popular iu his profession. By Mr Gully : Cottrell and Young charged £ls for work which other persons had done on previous occasions for £5 or £6. An order for goods was always given on a printed

form, but no such order was presented by Mr Flockton. By the Jury : Went to Fiji for rest and quietness after the season. By Mr Travers : The property-man had no right to hire things without authority. Could only attach one meaning to the paragraph, and that was that they (the plaintiffs) had run away to Fiji to evade payment off their debts. By Mr Travers : At the close of the last W eilington season there was some intention on the part of himself and Macmahon to bring up au amateur opera company from Christchurch. Correspondence passed with the members of the company on the subject,, but the negotiations fell through very early. It was proposed that the amateurs should play in Wellington during the Christmas season, Mr Gillon acting as witness’ agent. The idea was not definitely conceived, before witness’ company left Wellington, that they should return shortly afterward to produce a play called “ Human Nature.” It did nofc occur to witness that the “anxious inquirers ” might be the supernumeraries who expected to be required for the production of the opera. To Mr Gully: His reason for putting a, libellous construction on the paragraph wao not conscious guilt on his own part, but conscious malice on the part of the writer. As they held that they owed no debts, that was the only construction that could be put oix the words. This concluded the plaintiffs’ ease. In opening the case for the defendants, Mr Travers submitted that the innuendo, asstated, had not been proved by Mr Leitch’sevidence.

His Honor said that there was no evidence to go to the jury with regard to the innuendo, except as to the point of insolvency. The witness had given his opinion, butthe jury would of course form their own conclusions. After some argument, Mr Gully agreed tostrike out the words “ were insolvent and ” from the declaration. He also agreed, as suggested by Mr Travers, to substitute the words “ run away to Fiji” for “ absconded.” - Mr Travers, addressing the jury, said thatthere were now two propositions as to the meaning which the plaintiffs attached to the paragraph. He contended that there was nostatement that the plaintiffs had departed permanently for Fiji, as suggested. The words, “pair of managers,” might be considered offensive, but they did not amount to anything more than rudeness. Evidence would be adduced to show that there were persons in Wellington who complained bitterly that the plaintiffs had gone away owing them accounts. Those accounts might be disputed, but he contended that, if he proved that the claimants bad good foundation for believing that they Had just claims, this would be sufficient to rebut the allegation of malice in publication. All that was alleged was that there were “anxious inquirers,” and it would be shown that there were inquirers who claimed to be creditors. He did not' think that the interpretation placed on the paragraph by the plaintiffs was that they were insolvent, or wished to avoid payment of their debts, but that their absence in Fiji rendered it difficult for claimants to recover the amounts, as they were beyond the jurisdiction of the Court. He submitted that there were accounts owing, and the jury must come to the conclusion that the meaning put upon the paragraph in the statement of defence was the correct one. Mr Travers then called, Edwin Thomas Gillon, editor of the Eveniag post, who deposed that, very much against his ordinary practice, he had consented to make certain arrangements for the plaintiffs in connection with their season in Wellington. He was supposed to get a commission, and fully expected that he would have got £SO for leasing the Opera House. He knew plenty of managers who would have given that sum for securing the building. The last day that Macmahon was iD Wellington he called on witness, but went away again, saying that he would be back in ten minutes to settle up with witness. About half an hour afterward witness heard that Macmahon had sailed for Napier in the Southern Cross. Witnesshad agreed to take £25 for his services. Received a letter on the 19th with a cheque for £2O from Russell, dated the 10th. Previous to that witness had heard something that caused him to make inquiries about the plaintiffs. He was told on the 13th that the plaintiffs had left for Fiji. After making inquiries in Wellington witness wired to Mr McGowan, theatrical manager in Auckland, and received a reply to the effect that they had gone toJFiji on the 9th January. A good many inquiries as to the whereabouts of the plaintiffs were made between the time of the plaintiffs’ departure from Wellington and the publication of the paragraph. Messrs Cottrell and Young frequently spoke to witness complaining bitterly of the plaintiffs going away without paying them. Heard of several persons who had not been paid by the plaintiffs before the paragraph was published. It was the first time witness haa had any monetary transactions with the plaintiffs. When they started for Fiji they were still indebted to witness. Since Mr Leitch’s return witness had sent a letter asking that the remainder of his claim should be settled. As the claim was not settled, he sued Mr Leitch, and the money was subsequently paid into Court. By Mr Gully : Received a cheque on tne 19th for £2O with a postscript that the plaintiffs had transferred their account to Sydney, and unless the cheque was presented quickly he would probably not get it cashed. Heara of stage and front of the house hands being left unpaid by the plaintiffs. Did not insert the paragraph because the plaintiffs had gone away without paying him. He felt more sorry for Cottrell and Young than concerned about himself. Had no M-feelmg against the plaintiffs. Did not think it re. markable that no one but himself had Made any effort to get money from the plaintiffs. Did not mean by the paragraph that the plaintiffs were running away to avoid payment of their debts. He meant that they wished to Day as few debts as possible before going to Fiji. Did not send his account in Wellington because Mr Macmahon had promised to call, and settle up with him. Had spoken in a general way to Mr Humphries, of the Press Association, about the matter, but not specially. . _ Frederick William Cottrell, carrier and commission agent, deposed that he had executed certain work for the plaintiffs, such as

- carting Bcenory, etc., and getting ferns at Wadestowu. Had made out an account of between £l2 and £l4 against the plaintiffs. ' The' charges wituess made were quite reasonable. Beforo the account was delivered, Wiseman, the plaintiffs’ agent, called at the office with a cheque drawn for £5. Witnesß refused the £5, and Wiseman took £3 10a out of his pocket, stating that was all the money ho had. He said that witness had better accept that. Witness refused to accept the amount as a discharge of the debtWisemau having satisfied himself that the charge was reasonable, promised to submit the accouut to Mr Maomahon at Napier. Ho told wituess that the full amount would be remitted from Napier. JDid not receive any letter from Napier, but received one from Auckland renewing the offer of £S. By Mr Gully : Wiseman pooh-poohed the account, but witness convinced him that it was a reasonable charge. Wiseman would have paid the money there and then if he had had the money. Subsequently, however, witness’ partner accepted the £S without witness’ knowledge. Did not think it was good policy to throw good money after bad, and therefore did not think it advisable to try and get the money from the plaintiffs -after they left Wellington. . William Andrew Young, partner with the former witness, deposed that he was present when Mr Wisemau called at the office ou the occasiou alluded to by Mr Cottrell. Before Wiseman saw the account he offered the cheque for £5, which was refused. Subsequently accepted the £5 because he thoughtthe plaintiff’s were leaving the Colony. Had told Mr Odilon that he thought the account was disputed by the plaintiffs. Henry Fielder deposed that the defendants were not indebted to him a half-penny when they left Wellington. Did not remember ever having spoken to Mr Gillon about Leitch and Macmahon in the cafe next to Duke of Edinburgh Hotel. Macmahon and Leitch did not owe him any money, and he did not remember having said any. thing to Mr Gillon about them. By the Jury : Did not know who Mr ■■Gillon was until tbat day. Mathew Eller, cabinetmaker, deposed that he had supplied chairs to the Opera House in December last. He believed they were for the use of the Governor. Did not send in any account, because he was not sure whether the chairs were for the Directors, who had bad them on a previous occasion, or Leitch and Macmahon. Arthur Edward Baldwin deposed that Leitch aud Macmahon did not owe him money, and never had. He had told someone that they did owe him money, but had said so without thinking. This was all the evidence called for the •defence. Mr Travers addressed the jury at some length on behalf of the defendants. He said a specific sense had been put upon the language ofthe paragraph different from that in the statement of claim, and it was treated as defamatory. The question for the jury to decide was whether the plaintiffs had left Wellington without paying their debts. He maintained that they could not arrive at any other conclusion. It had been proved that their debts were not paid when they left for Eiji. He contended that there was justification for what the defendants had done. The plaintiffs had put an offensive meaning upon the paragraph which was never intended. His Honor said that if paragraphs of this kind were inserted in a newspaper, and were not justified on the grounds of truth, then the proprietors should suffer.. There was no call on a newspaper to publish these kind of statements, and it was not sufficient that they should insert them upon information they had received. Mr Gully addressed the jury. He contended that the defence had not proved that the words were not: defamatory or true. It was plain that the paragraph intended to suggest that the plaintiffs had left Wellington for the purpose of evading payment of their debts. He contended that there was no evidence of justification for writing the paragraph. He apprehended . that the amount claimed was not in any degree excessive in consideration of the -damage done. His Honor briefly summed up. The case was not a difficult one, and it was needless for him to address them at any length. He aaid it was no answer in a case of this kind to say that an imputation was put in bona fide and believed to be true. If they were satisfied that the words were defamatory and untrue, then it would be for them to consider what amount of damage had been done. The Jury retired at 6.50, and returned at 7.40 with a verdict for the plaintiff for £l5O. Judgment was entered up accordingly, with -costs on the lowest scale. The Court adjourned at 8.5 till 10 a.m. next morning,

Friday, April 15. {Before his Honor Mr Justice Richmond and a Special Jury.) BANK OF NEW ZEALAND V. THOMAS HODGINS. This was an action originally brought against Thomas Hodgins and William Fades, but as the latter had become bankrupt the action was only brought against Hodgins. Mr Travers appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr Jellicoe represented the defendant. The following special jurors were empanelled : —Messrs Joseph Lachman (foreman), John Wilkins, jun., George Brown, Walter W. Bodmin, Frederick White, Thomas P. Allen, Henry M. McCaull, James Wall, James Hutchens, William Munro, Edward W. Lowe, and Francis A. Orbell. The statement of claim set forth that in the month of October, 1886, the defendant (William Eades) requested the plaintiff to make him advances either by allowing him tooverdraw his account, or by discounting for frim bills of exchange, promissory notes, or by anv other means. The plaintiff bank agreed to make the said advances to the defendant in manner aforesaid, subject to the condition of the defendant William Fades opening a new account with the plaintiff, and of the defendant and one William Richard Waters, of Wellington, merchant, jointly and severally guaranteeing to the plaintiff the payment of all such advances out of such account to the extent of The defendant and the said W. R. Waters thereupon gave the plaintiff bank the following guarantee in writing : —“ Inconsequence of the Bank of New Zealand making advances to William Eades, of Wellington, by either allowing him to overdraw his ac-

count or by discounting for him bills of ex- j change or promissory notes, or by any other [ means, we jointly and severally undertake 1 to pay to the said bank to the extent of six j hundred pounds sterling (£600) all such advances, and all debts now owing or accruing [ from time to time from William Eades to | the said bank, and all interest on the same respectively in case the said William. Eades shall make default iu payment of such moneys and interest or of any part thereof respectively. This guarantee to continue in force till countermanded in writing from the date thereof, and to be a continuing guarantee, irrespective of any sura or sums which may at any time or times be paid into the said bank to the account of the said William Eades, and we agree that the said bank may at any time, and from time to time, compound with the said William Eades or any drawer, accepting payee, maker, or endorser of any bill of exchange, promissory note, cheque, draft, or other negotiable security received by the said bank from or on account of the said William Eades for the whole or any part of his liabilities to the said bank, or may give him such time for discharging the same or any part thereof as the said bank may deem proper, and that without releasing or affecting our liability under this guarantee ; and further that if the said bank shall at any time receive any dividend or any estate of the said W Eades, or if any such drawer, acceptor, payee, maker, or endorser as aforesaid, such dividend shall not go or he taken as in discharge of any part of the amount secured by this guars ntee, and we undertake not to prove against any bankrupt or assigned estate in competition with the bank to secure ourselves for this guarantee. Mr Eades has given us in writing a fresh claim on the 25 ’ per cent to be reserved till the three thousand two hundr.d and fifty-six pounds contract for the Royal Oak Hotel is satisfactorily completed. - (Signed) W. R. Waters aud Thomas Hodgins.” The plaintiff bank upon receiving such guarantee and undertaking accordingly made advances in mauner aforesaid to the said Mr Eades to the'amount of £598 Ss 7d, and there is due iu respect thereof the sum of £6 10s for interest, making together the sum of £604 18s 7d ; the other guarantor has become iu insolvent circumstances ; demand had been made from the defendant W. Eades, but h 8 had refused to pay the said sum of £604 18s 7d, nor has he paid any part thereof ; notice of default of William Eades in payment of the said sum of £604 ISs 7d, and a demand of payment from the defendant, Thomas Hodgins, had been given by the plaintiff to the said defendant, Thomas Hodgius, and the said Thomas Hodgins had refused to p»y the same to the amount of £6OO, or any part thereof, and repudiated all liability on and under the said guarantee ; all notices had been given and all times had elapsed and conditions had been performed necessary for the purpose of enabling the plaintiff bank to maintain the action. Wherefore the plaintiff prayed for judgment as follows: (1) Against the defendants, both or either of them, for the sum of £6OO. (2) Against the defendant, William Eades, for the sum of £4 18s 7q, being the balance owing by the said William Eades beyond the amount so guaranteed aforesaid. (2) For such further or other relief against each or either of the defendants as the 'Court may think proper. The statement of defence was as follows : (1) That the defendant wasinduced to make the writing of guarantee in' paragraph 5 of the plaintiff’s statement of claim, and the same was obtained from him by the fraud and misrepresentation of the plaintiffs' agent, one Duignan, aud others in collusion with him. (2) Before and at the time of making the said guarantee, the defendant, William Eades, was desirous of borrowing of the plaintiffs the sum of £6OO, and the plaintiffs proposed to lend the same upon the security of a guarantee to be made therefor, and signed by the defendant and one W. R. Waters as sureties for the said William Eades for the repayment of such sum not exceeding £6OO as should be lent and advanced by the plaintiffs to the said William Eades with interest, and upon the understanding and condition that the plaintiff should and would, upon the guarantee being made, advance aud lend to the said William Eades as a prospective cash credit the sum of £6OO, to enable the said William Eadea to complete the building contract and earn the progress payments on the said writing of guarantee, and which payments were then made available to indemnify the defendant against any liability thereby incurred, and the defendant then signed the guarantee upon the said terms, and not otherwise or upon any other consideration. (3) That at the time and upon the making of the said guarantee the said William Eades, W. R. Waters, aud one Frederick Hill were indebted to the plaintiffs in the sum cf £193 6s lid, and the plaintiffs, in fraud of the defendant, and without the defendant’s knowledge or consent, secretly agreed with the said W. Eades that £193 6s lid of the moneys to be secured by the said guarantee should be made applicable to the payment of the said old debt due from the said W. Eades, W. R. Waters, and F. Hill, to the plaintiffs. (4) That it was material to the defendant to know the facts mentioned in the last preceding paragraph of this statement, and they were not disclosed to him by the plaintiffs. (5) The plaintiffs forbore to lend an advance to the said W. Eades of the sum of £6OO without the defendant’s knowledge or consent, whereby the said W. Eades was prevented by the plaintiffs from completing the contract'and earning the progress payments in the writing of guarantee, and there never was any consideration for the payment of the guarantee. (6) For the reasons mentioned the defendant says that his said suretyship was and is void. (7) The defendant denies paragraphs 6,7, and 9, and 10 of the statement of claim. The only other witness called by the plaintiffs was Dudley Tripe, ledger-Keeper of the Te Aro branch of the Bank of New Zealand. William Eades deposed that he had the contract of the Royal Oak Hotel. Had asked the manager of the bank (Mr Dnignan) if he would advance him an overdraft in order that he might carry out the work. Had asked the manager if he would advance him about £4OO or £SOO. The bank was not disposed to advance the money unless witness got security. Had interviewed a Mr Fred. Hill, who declined to act as security. Then went to Messrs Hodgins and Waters, who agreed to go security. The

bank manager subsequently accepted these as securities. Accompanied Mr Hodgins to the bank when the document was signed. Had explained to Mr Hodgins the nature of the Royal Oak contract, and that he needed an advance to go on with it. Waters was with witness and Hodgins when they went to the bank. There was something said about witness’ indebtedness to the bank while Hodgins was in the room. Had asked the bank manager whether the money was likely to be advanced. The manager replied that a former guarantee in which the witness and Waters and Hill were concerned would have to be paid, The manager had told witness not to stint himself for a £IOO, and promised to lend witness £6OO on condition that the previous guarantee was paid off. Did not tell the defendant about this because he thought Mr Waters would tell him, as he was a personal friend of his. After the document was signed witness received a communication from Mr Waters, in consequence of which he returned to the bank. Witness gave the manager a cheque for £193 in respect of the guarantee. By Mr Travers : Did not tell the defendant that the bank manager had stipulated that the previous guarantee would have to bo paid. Had informed Waters, but not the defendant, that the old overdraft would have t > be paid. The manager of the bank had told wituess tbat £6OO was the lim:t of advance, and that he had better take that so that he need not be cramped. Did nob tell Mr Waters to conceal the arrangement about the overdraft. If the defendant had asked witness about it he would have told him at once. After the transaction Waters told witness that the bank manager wanted to see him about the cheque in respect to the former guarantee. Nothing was said to the defendant about this by witness. He left the matter to Mr Waters. Thomas Hodgins deposed that he had no knowledge of what Mr Waters and Mr Eades’ position was at the bank when he went security for the money. If he had he would not have had anything to do with it. Was not aware of any overdraft being due to the bank. Before witness signed the guarantee he asked the bank manager why the amount had been altered from £SOO to £6OO, because the first proposition was that he should should sign for £SOO. When he heard of the overdraft ho saw Mr Eades about it, and also Mr Duignan, the bank manager, who expressed himself as sorry at the manner in which the transaction had been carried out. Witness did not recognise the bank’s claim. By Mr Travers : When he heard that the amount of the advance was increased, asked the manager why it was so, and he replied that it was to give Eades an extra hundred to carry on the contract. When he saw Mr Stafford after hearing of the overdraft, he (Mr Stafford) was very “rough” about it, and said it was a scandalous thing. Would certainly not have signed the guarantee if he had known that there was an old debt to be paid off. This was all the evidence called for the defence. Counsel having addressed the jury, his Honor summed up. After a few minutes’ retirement, the jury found that there had not been auy fraud on the part of the plaintiff bank, and accordingly gave a verdict for the full amount. His Honor gave defendant leave to move to reduce the damages by £193 6s lid. (Before his Honor the Chief Justice, without a jury.) HEATON V. SMART. '' This was an action brought to recover £3OO as damages, as the alternative of failing to perform part of an agreement in which the plaintiff alleged that the defendant agreed to lease to him a baker’s shop and land situate in Manners-street for ten years, at a rental of £l3O per annum for the first seven years of the term, and a rental of £156 for the remainder of the term, the first payment to become due on the 11th October, 1886. The plaintiff entered into possession of the premises and executed certain alterations and additions agreed to in the contract. The defendant did not execute sneb lease of the premises and otherwise carry out the agreement, and wholly refused to do so. The plaintiff therefore claimed that th« Court should order the defendant specifically to perforin the said agreement, and in the alternative he claimed the damages and costs of the action. The defendant denied that he agreed to 4 the demise of the premises and property mentioned, and that a proper lease had been prepared. The defendant also alleged that if it was found that he did agree to the demise, of the property, then he had always been ready to perform the said agreement. Mr Jellicoe appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Skerrett for the defendant. After hearing evidence his Honor said he would give judgment at a future date. (Before his Honor Mr J ustice Richmond and a Special Jury.) MACMAHON AND LEITCH V UNITED PRESS ASSOCIATION. The following gentlemen were sworn in as the jury :—Messrs J. R. Blair (foreman) Isaac Plimmer, J. McMenamin, T. W. Young, E. C. Mills, J. Gear, C. A. Cornish, J. Kitchen, H. Beauchamp, G. B. Taylor, H. Jackson,and James Lockie. This was an action for an alleged libel brought by the plaintiffs, Messrs Maomahon and Leitch, against the United Press Association, for maliciously causing to be circulated and published throughout New Zealand a telegraphic message in tjae following words: “Wellington, Sunday. The departure of Messrs Macmahon and Leitch, theatrical managers, from Auckland to Fiji, has caused many anxious . inquiries here.” Wherefore the plaintiffs claim to recover tbe sum of £IOOO. The defendants in their statement of defence deny that the telegram wm circulated and published with any malicious, libellous, or defamatory sense or meaning. Mr Gully appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Travers, with him Mr Stafford, for the defendants. Mr Gully briefly opened the case, saying that the telegram sent out by the Press Association could not be considered as being of public interest, and must have been sent for a specific purpose. The following evidence was then given : GeorgeLeitch, partner with Mr Macmahon, stated that he was a theatrical manager and actor. He had been four trips through New Zealand. Left Aackland on the 19th January

last for Fiji. Always opened a banking account at each town he visited for the purpose of paying off liabilities. Opened an account in Wellington, and advertised in the Evening Post that any outstanding accounts should be sent in at once. When he left Wellington he had a credit balance at the bank of about £4OO. He first heard of this paragraph about three weeks after leaving Auckland. The insertion of the telegram had greatly interfered with his business transactions. By this time the news would have been disseminated throughout the whole of England and America, and it would take him a long time before he could clear himself of the stigma. The interpretation he placed upon the telegram was that he had sought Fiji as a refuge to avoid paying his just debts in Wellington. The ouly persons he owed money to wheu he left Wbllingion was Mr E. T. Gillon, Messrs Cotterill and Young, and Mr H. Flockton. Mr Travers had scarcely commenced his cross-examination when the Court adjourned until 10 o’clock next morning.

Saturday, April 16. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Richmond.) LIBEL action. The hearing of the action in which Messrs Macmahon and Leitch, theatrical managers, sought to recover £IOOO, damages alleged to to have been sustained by the defendants causing the publication of a paragraph referring to the defendants, was resumed. Mr Leitch, in examination, said his firm could not have carried on their business in Australia without his presence. He never acted as business manager—that was Mr Macmahon’s duty. He (witness) attended to the stage management. The last trip to Wellington waa not a great success. By Mr Gully : The trip resulted in a profit, though it was not a great success. Could not say exactly what the profit was. W. H. Atack, manager of the Press Association, said the principal duty of the Association was to supply news to most newspapers in the Colony. The paragraph in question was sent out only to morning newspapers; the evening papers could have copied it from them. It was sent out by his instructions. He was told by Mr Humphries that he had reason to believe that people were irritated by the departure of the plaintiffs. The paragraph having appeared in a reputable newspaper he felt justified in telegraphing it away. By Mr Travers : The telegraphed statement was based on what had appeared in the Evening Post. It would be impossible to go round and verify these things—there would not be time. This was the case for the plaintiff. Mr Travers said the defendants did not propose to call evidence. Mr Gully, addressing the Court, pointed out that Eiji was a place that had been a civil refuge —a happy land where the Queen’s writ did not run, and where the creditor ceased from grumbling and the weary debtor was at rest, and asked the jury to consider what the paragraph, in that light, meant. He pointed out that the plaintiffs when they went to Fiji, left a balance of £4OO to their credit at Auckland. He characterised the paragraph as most utterly ridiculous and foundatioaless. Six creditors were said to have been left behind, three of whom wire imaginary and vanished into their air ; and Mr Atack said he did not 'ttpnk he was called upon to verify the paragraph ; it was quite enough for him that some paragraph-monger had put the statement iu a respectable journal. Mr Gully pointed out the great importance of the power given to individuals who had the power of publicity in this way. He frequently noticed “news” telegraphed by the Association that was altogether unworthy such an Association as this. As an instance he referred to a telegram published all over the Colony as to a person in Wellington being connected with a scandal worthy to come before the courts. Touching the question of damages, Mr Gully set before the jury the question of the loss Macmahon and Leitch would be likely to suffer by not being able to play, as they had arranged, in Australia dur ng Easter, and by not being able to complete engagements they were about to enter into. Apart from this, he laid stress upon the injury directly caused by the wide publication of such a paragraph as this. Concluding, he said it was the duty of the jury to protect people from the wrong use of the enormous power placed in the hands of the Association. Mr Travers submitted that where damages were claimed as general damages, the special damages (as to the loss of the Easter season) could not be claimed. Mr Gully said he did not claim special damages. If he did he should at once have been entitled to claim £6OO. He only quoted that as a reasonable probability of the loss accruing to plaintiffs. Mr Travers went on to address the jury. The first question for them, he said, was whether the language of the paragraph, apart from what had been made public in connection with this action, contained ehe grave imputations suggested. The paragraph said the departure of the plaintiffs had caused many anxious inquiries here. He pointed out that not a single witness had been asked to say what interpretation had been placed by readers in other parts of the Colony on that statement. There could be no desire on the part of ‘ the Association, he said, to injure the plaintiffs, and the body itself was now suffering an action for what had been done, indiscreetly certainly, by its servant. Heavy damages under the circumstances would be unfair, especially as the language was not the same as that which had appeared in the Evening Post. He submitted that the fact that the paragraph was taken from a journal like the Post should affect the amount of damages. He remarked that Mr Gully had been incorrect in saying that a paragraph referring to a scandal in Wellington had Deen disseminated by the Association. That paragraph was sent by special correspondents—not by the Association. Mr Gully expressed regret that he had quoted that instance. Ho referred to it, however, only as a specimen of the Association’s general work. His Honor summed up. There were two questions, he said, for the jury—first as to whether this paragraph had the defamatory meaning assigned to it by the plaintiffs ; and second, the amount of damage, if the jury thought it did bear a defamatory meaning.

It was admitted that if it was defamatory it was untrue. He did not quite agree with what had been said as to the public duty of the Association, because in the eye of the law the Association was a private one. At the same time persons who in private business undertook to publish statements which were defamatory to individuals were liable for damages to those who were defamed. In this country any body who had capital enough to buy a printing press and a pound of type started a newspaper j he started it on commercial principles and wa3 a private citizen—no more. He had no public duty in a legal sense; in another sense there waa a legal duty, but the person who started the paper was a mere volunteer. This Association was in exactly the same position. It was not bound to publish anything, and its duty was to speak the truth of its neighbors. Their responsibility iu law was the greater, of course, in proportion to the amount of injury they inflicted. There was only one legal question which the jury had to deal with, which was this—Mr Travers had suggested that the telegram was inserted ou the authority of a previous paragraph in the Evening Post, and he had put it to them that that might be considered in mitigation of damage. His Honor was of opinion that it could not. If the telegram had been reported by the Association as something said by the Post, that might perhaps have made a difference he did not know that it would. As to the fact that the Association had to take it from the Post, and had not the time to examine it for themselves, that was their affair—they must run the risk. As he had said, they were under no public duty; they were mere volunteers, and if, even unwittingly or unintentionally, they inflicted damage upon people they must expect to get a verdict against them. On the only other question—as to the quantum of damage—he said nothing. The matter had been very well discussed by counsel ou both sides for their respective clients, and nothing he could do would be more than an expression of opinion on a matter in which the jury were as well qualified to express an opinion as he was. The jury, after an absence of ten minutes, returned aud gave their verdict, that they found tbe words were defamatory, and awarded the plaintiff £2OO damages. Costs were allowed on tbe lowest scale. BAIRD V. MARTIN. This was a claim by Mr J. D. Baird against the Hon J. Martin for £2OO commission on the sale of the Otaria run. Mr Gully appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Stafford for defendant. The case having been partially heard, the defendant consented to judgment for the amount claimed, with costs. The Court was then adjourned to the 2nd May. *