SUPREME COURT.—IN BANCO.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 4161, 22 July 1874, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.—IN BANCO.

♦ Tuesday, July 21. (Before His Honor Mr. Justice Johnston.) STEELE V. HUTCHISON. —KEOGH V. SAME. These were actions brought against the proprietor of the Tribune newspaper for printing and publishing a criticism alleged to be libellous, and the parties arranged that the judgment in one case should be held to apply to both. The defendant pleaded justification, in that the facts alleged in the criticism were true. The plaintiffs demurred that the defendant's plea was bad, on the ground that it did Dot set forth the particular facts which the defendant proposed to prove. Mr. Travers appeared for the plaintiffs, in support of the demurrer. The AttorneyGeneral, instructed by Mr. Moorhouse, for the defendant. The criticism complained of described the performance of the plaintiffs' dramatic company as " knock-kneed," " dingle-dangled," &c, and the members. of the company were described as " with one or two exceptions the greatest lot of muffs ever witnessed ;" it was also stated that " only the most depraved taste could tolerate such a motley company." Such terms as " drunkenness," " rowdyism," and "larrikins," were also used. Judgment was reserved. ALLEN V. ANDEKSON. The Attorney-General, instructed by Mr. Moorhouse, appeared for the plaintiff, and applied for a rule nisi to show cause why the defendant should not pay to the plaintiff his costs in the action, on the ground that the juryat the trial found that the libel, the cause of action, was published wilfully and malicously. Judgment reserved. GALBUAITH V. HARDING. This was a motion by the defendant for arrest of judgment, on the ground that a material condition precedent to the performance of the contract which the plaintiff claimed to have enforced, had not been performed. Mr. Travers appeared for the defendant, and Mr. J. N. Wilson, of Napier, for the plaintiff. The counsel for the defence argued that, as the contract did not state any specific time for its fulfilment, the payment of the consideration money was a condition precedent to such performance, and that, as the jury had not found that the consideration money had either been paidjor even tendered, judgment should be. reversed and entered up for the defendaut. The case was tried at Napier, and judgment given for the plaintiff, with £250 damages. An order for a new trial was subsequently given, the question of costs being reserved. His Honor refused to grant the rule, but gave leave to move the Court of Appeal.