Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

A PECULIAR CASE.

(PER press association.) Auckland, February 12. The case, Humphreys v. Use, an action for £1250 for alleged slander, was concluded at the Supreme Court to day. Mr Justice Conolly in summing up addressed the jury for over an hour aud a half, and in concluding commented on the evidence as to the attempt to secure testimony. He said that as he had pointed out Humphreys was not content to take down a statement for the witnesses as to what they could prove, but that he also endeavoured to get affidavits from them, and did succeed in obtaining an affidavit in one instance. He also appeared to have been continually looking up the witnesses, and was most anxious that they should stick to the statements which they had initialled, but there was evidence of even more extraordinary conduct on the part of the plaintiff. There was evidence that not only had he taken down the statements from witnesses, and impressed upon them the necessity of sticking to what he had written down and what they had initialled, but that he held out to them inducements which ought not to have been necessary to bold out to any witness to tell the truth. The plaintiff seemed to have been most anxious that there should have been some greater inducements than the love of truth in the minds of those witnesses, and that he should hold out to them that it would be substantially to their advantage if they swore up to the mark, to use a common expression. A verdict was returned for the defendant, for whom also costs were given on the highest scale. Mr Button, for the defendant, asked that the promissory note given by the plaintiff to one of his witnesses (Sorain) to be negotiated when the case was over, should be impounded with a view to having the matter .considered by the Law Society (the plain-i-if? being a solicitor). His Honor said the was Mr Sorain’s property, and he did not think it fair to impound it. The notes of the evidence would, however, be at the disposal of the Lrw Society.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZMAIL18900214.2.38

Bibliographic details

New Zealand Mail, Issue 937, 14 February 1890, Page 12

Word Count
357

A PECULIAR CASE. New Zealand Mail, Issue 937, 14 February 1890, Page 12

A PECULIAR CASE. New Zealand Mail, Issue 937, 14 February 1890, Page 12

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert