ACTION FOR SLANDER.

New Zealand Times, Volume LII, Issue 9321, 16 June 1891, Page 3

ACTION FOR SLANDER.

NICHOLSON v. MEEK, At the Supremo Court yeaterdvy, before His Honor the Chief Justice and a special jury, tbe case of Niobolaou v» Meek was commenced. This was an action in which tbe plaintiff, a sign-writer of this city, sought to obtain damage* to the amount of £IOOO from William Joseph Meek, for alleged slander. The following special jury were empanelledMessrs C. W. Benbow (foreman), W, C. Fitz Gerald, J. A. Plimmer, W. K. Barraud, C. B. Hard, J. Anderson, W. HaUe, F, Allan, H. J. Moroacroft, S. 0. Vickers and E. ti. Beero, Mr Jeilicoe appeared foi the plaintiff, and Mr Gully for tbe defendant. John Hanks* braeefoundcr, was called, and deposed to having known Mr Meek since his arrival in the Colony. Remembered speaking to Mr Nicholson about a letter be had received from Mr Meek, and Nicholson told witness he bad been to see Mr Jeilicoe. Witness bad burnt the letter. Ho had shown the letter to a Mr Copeland and a Mr Fletcher. The letter was not, ho thought, marked private. He burnt it because he did not wish to be where be was at that moment. The letter contained some very strong expressions with reference to Nicholson. Tho letter asked, “ What will you say when yon hear me call him a convicted fellow—a liberated convict?’' The letter concluded with “Yours fraternally,W, J, Meek." Witness did not send auy answer to that letter. Had put tbe letter in bis pocket and kept it there till he burnt it, only taking it out to show it to Copeland and Fletcher. Had replied to Mr Meek and objected to tbe expressions made use of in a previous letter, calling Mr Nicholson “a convicted fellow ’’ —not “felon," but “fellow." Did not think tbe term fellow a nice expression to use, and objected to it. Showed the letter to Mr Fletcher, secretary of the St, Andrew's Lodge. Would swear that the term was “ convicted follow," and not " convicted felon.” The letter he said he bad replied to was dated March 4th, and was the one produced ; it was signed by J. W, Meek. The Word pointed out by Mr Jeilicoe was “ fellow," and not felon. Had objected to the tenor of the letter, which stated that Nicholson should never have been admitted to the Lodge, Had destroyed the letter received from Meek on tbe day Mr Jelliooc’s clerk bad called for it. It was destroyed before Mrs Nicholson called to see it.

Cross-examined by Mr Gully - Had considered it a matter that ought to bo disposed of by the Lodge, and had therefore destroyed the letter before Mi Jsllicoo’s clerk could get it. Prior to the letter of March 4th there bad been a complaint made to the Lodge against Mr Meek by Mr Nicholson. This complaint was made in writing, and would be in the secretary’s hands. Meek’s letter was asking for particulars of that charge. Had written to Mr Meek complaining of the tone of his letter, aud then came the letter complained of. Mr Fletcher, the secretary of the Lodge, was here called into Court, and stated, iu reply to Mr Gully, that the letter written by Nicholson with reference to Meek had, ho thonght, been destroyed. Cross-examination continued—There were rales and regulations forming the constitution of the Lodge, which were printed. The book produced contained the constitutional laws under which their Lodge (the St Andrew’s) worked. Rale 202 gave (power to the Lodge to suspend a brother for offences. There was nothing in the constitution defining offences. It was customary in their Lodge to deal under rule 202 with implications against the personal character of a brother. Meek's letter contallied a lot of Lodge matter, but he could not remember what it was.

Re-examined : Thonght rule 202 of the Lodge regulations embraced ail relating to offonoea, _ Had been a member of thu Lmlgo for nine years. All imputations were beard before the Lodge. He did not remember any case of imputation against a member coming before the Lodge whilst he had been a member.

William Copeland, Watchmaker, of Wellington, was the next witness called, and deposed to knowing Mr Meek. Witness was not a member of the St Andrew’s Lodge, Did not know Mr Nioholsoa; knew Mr Danks, who had shown him a letter he had received from Mr Meek, The letter referred to Mr Nicholson. To the best of

bis belief the letter said "You object to me calling him a felon, but I now call him a convicted felon, and a liberated convict from Tasmania." Did not remember any other words in the letter. He had nothing to do with the St Andrew’s Lodge, The showing of the letter to him by Mr Danks had noth ing whatever to do with any Lodge. He believed the words he bad quoted were almost literally the same as what appeared in the letter Hacks had shown him. He had known from Nicholson and Danks that there had been quarrelling between Meek and Nicholson) and be bad quite expected trouble.

This closed the case for the plaintiff. - Mr Gully addressed the jury shortly, stating the nature of the evidence he intended to call. The case for the defence was then opened by the calling of the following evidence: J. W, Meek, the defendant, was called, and stated he had been a member of the Masonio fraternity for 25 years. He remembered writing the letter produced, and dated March 4th. He had received a notice from the Lodge stating that he had been charged with having violated his obligation. The notice did not say how hewasoharged with having violated his obligation. He wrote to Danks asking what “the felon” had accused him of. Danks wrote back stating it was nnmasonio of him to oali q brother a felon. He bad not kept these letters. He wrote another letter privately to'Mr Danks at his private residence, and sent it by his son. He remembered saying in that letter to Mr Danks ; “ You seem to be annoyed at me calling Bro. Nicholson a felon ; what will yon say when yon hear me call him a liberated convict, or a convicted felon? which his wife says he is.” These were what he remembered the words to be. There were other Lodge matters mentioned in the letter. He was enquiring as to what the particulars of the charge were, having heard of them only from outside the Lodge. He had made this accusation against Nicholson on the strength of what Mrs Nicholson had said to her daughter, who was now bis (witness’) wife. He had heard Mrs Nicholson say to her daughter (witness’ wife): " I have pat up with his bad treatment long enough; I can stand it no longer. 1 will leave this bouse and not sleep in it again. I have kept hie secrets even from bis children. He is a liberated convict, and that is yonr father,” Witness stated be had heard this whilst at the door of tho plaintiff’s house, and be walked away when be heard it, being sorry that it had come to his ears. This was on the 4th of February, and he was married to plaintiff's daughter on the 14tb. It was after this that the plaintiff made charges against him at the Lodge. A quarrel took place in the ante-room of tho Lodge, and ontside they came to blows—plaintiff striking him and catting his eye open, He went home at once. Mrs Meek was there, and he told her bow he had been hurt. Next morning Mrs Meek told him, whilst at breakfast, that her father bad been a very bad man. She then told him what her mother had told her on the night of February 4th. Witness stopped her, and said ha had already heard it. Mrs Meek then told him how her father had come out to Tasmania, having had two years to serve. Mrs Meek also raid her mother bad told her that she had seen bocks in the possession of Mr Gann, Resident Magistrate, in whose service she (Mrs Nicholson) was. He had used this information, believing it to be trne, and considering it his duty to communicate the facts to the Master of the Lodge. He was nndor an obligation to do so. He had tried to settle the matter out of Court, and even offered Nicholson £IOO, so that tho proceedings need not be brought and the details pabiished. He did not wish to have Masonio matters brought into Court. The Court here adjourned for lunch, and upon resuming the cross-examination of the defendant was commenced by Mr Jellicoe. Witness stated he had first become acquainted with Mr Nicholson, the plaintiff, about three years previously, but had not known the family till about November last, when he went to Nioholaon’s to play at oards. In November laat be bad two of his children living with him. His present wife’s age was twenty and he met her at her father’a house. She went to his house to take care of his children and was there for about ten days. On the last day of Miss Nicholson being at bis house he asked her to bo his wife. He had obtained Mrs Nicholson's consent before ho asked her daughter to be his wife. Mr Nicholson came to ■ his (witness’) house on February 1, when he told him he bad obtained his (Nicholson’s) wife’s consent to his daughter’s

marriage. Mr Nicholson had never accused him of taking a mean advantage cf him. He bad never beard of acy charges against him by Nicholson prior to receiving notice of same from tbe Lodgo. The latter produced was in bis handwriting—he had a copy of it. , . Mr Gully here objected to the letter being put in, tho charges contained therein referring to other people and not to the defendant.

Mr Jeilicoe stated that be would get wbat be wanted without putting tbe letter in. Cross-examination continued t Witness stated that in the letter produced he bad referred to charges brought against him by Nicholson and his wife. If he had acted in the way he bad been accused of, be would have been violat ng bis Masonic ob'igations. He received the notification of the charges from the Lodge a few days after he was married to his present wife. When he received the particulars of the ohargea he bad not even told bis wife of them. Between the time he heard of tbe charges and tbe time he wrote to Mr Banks ho spoke of them to no one. The word in the letter was “fellow" and not “felon." He had Tasmania in bis mind when be wrote that letter to Banks. Tho letter produced was from him to Mr Nicholson, and dated March 2nd [ln tbe loiter tbe writer asked for a written apology from Nicholson for having struck him, and stating that unless it was given he (Meek) would let the Lodge know about Nicholson's connection with Tasmania]

Witness continuing, stated he knew be wrote to both Mr Banks and Mr Nicholson on March I4th. The letter, witness stated, asked Nicholson to send all tho things they bad belonging to his wife—including some £4 in money—and asking them why they did not act honestly, and suggesting he (tbe writer) could not expect anything better from a liberated convict. He had nothing to withdraw from what bo had written about Nicholson. Ho bad sent his letter to Mr Banks as Muster of the Lodge* and sent it by private messenger to prevent miscarriage. It was bis duty to send this information to tbe Master of the Lodge* and also bis duty as a Past-Master to do so. He did not mean Mr Banks to show it to anyone. Would not eay what he thought of Mr Banks for showing tho letter. He would nob say what he had said to Mr Banks in the Lodge—would rather go to prison than eay what be had said to Bro. Banks in the Lodge. Was not fond of litigation* He would not apologise to Mr Nicholson.

Re-exomiaed by Mr Gully : Had mad© ‘use of the information be had got through Mrs Nioholson, being convinced that it was true. Had offered to pay £IOO to keep the matter out of Court in the interests of Freemasonry. He considered the proceedings a disgrace to Freemasonry. He had never got a reply from Nicbolßon explaining the charges. Cross-examined by Mr Jeilicoe : Had written a letter to Nioholson upbraiding him with beating h!s wife. In reply to Mr Gully witness said the occasion of bis bearing tho charges made by Mrs Nicholson against her husband was when Nicholson had been beating her. Martha Annie Meek, wife of the previous witness, was called.

Examined by Mr Gully : Witness stated she remembered going home one day and finding a quarrel going on. Her mother was crying and much disturbed. Her mother told her not to speak to her, as she was not fit to bo her mother. She also said she did not know why her father had struck her. She also referred to having kept her (witness') father's secrets for more than 30 years. “Your father,” she said, “la a liberated convict," Witness then gave corroboration to tho evidence of the previous witness.

Cross examined by Mr Jelliooo : She was 20 years of age. Mr Meek had not courted her till the last day aba was at bis house in charge of the children. The day before she left Mr Meek had told her he bad gut her parents’ consent to his marrying her, but he did not propose to her till the day following. Her father had given his consent to her marriage in the presence of witness and Mr Meek, She would swear to this. Had heard her mother say Mr Meek had taken a mean advantage of the family. She had done dressmaking ou her own account, and kept her father’s house before she married. This closed the case for the defence.

Mr Jelliooe stated ho proposed calling rebutting evidence. Christina Nicholson, wife of the plaintiff, was called, and stated she had never tilt the last moment consented to her daughter’s marriage to Mr Meek, Mr Meek had asked her if she would ba willing that her daughter should marry him, and she said no, Witness did all she could to prevent Meek from marrying her daughter. Witness and her husband had had a few words on the night referred to. She had never made use of the words imputed to her regarding her husband, and bis being a convicted felon. Sho (witness) bad never had any marks from her husband’s violence, and it was not true he was a wife beater. Mr Nicholson bad been a good husband and a kind father. They bad been married some 31 years.

By Mr Gully—She could not keep Mr Meek out of her h uso, although she had refused to allow her daughter to marry him. She had often told Mr Meek to keep away from their house. Mr Meek bad come to the house with their daughter on the night of February 4th, and after the quarrel between Nicholson and herself. The statements made by Mr Meek and his wife were untrue. Had mat hop husband in Tasmania, where they were married. She was pre. viously in the employ of Mr Gunn, Resident Magistrate. Had hoard of certain charges against Meek, and if she bad known of them before the marriage bo would never hare been allowed to marry her daughter. By Mr Jelliooo : A friend of Mr Meek’s—a Mr Carr —had told her of the charges against Meek, Thomas Nicholson, the plaintiff, was next called, and stated that he had been in Wellington some six years. Had come out in the ship Madagascar to Fort Phillip in 1851. Had come out as a passenger and paid bis passage. Had gone to the diggings, and paid a visit in ISS4 to Western Australis, Went to Tasmania in 1856 on a visit with a Mr William Farridge, of England. Again returned to Tasmania in 1953, and there married. Went to Tasmania under engagement to a firm of decorators. Had a certificate from his then employers. Had refused Mr Meek as a son in-law owing to the disparity in years between him and witness’ daughter. Had never struck hie wife, though he had quarrelled with'her regarding their daughter and Mr Meek. The witness then gave further evidence corroborating previous witnesses. He also stated that Mr Meek had shown him the will produced. Witness asked Meek to add a line to the will stating that it was irrevocable, and ho consented. They got Mr Carr and Mr O’Snllivan to witness the will, aud nnder pressure he (witness) went to the Registry Office and signed a paper giving his consent to his daughter’s marriage, she being a minor. The charges bo bad made against Meek in the Lodge were the resnlt of what he had been told by a friend (Mr Carr), who must have been informed by either Meek or bis wife as to what had Occurred in Meek’s house when his (witness’) daughter was there. He had subsequently accused Meek in the Lodge of having broken his obligations ns a Past Master. He wished to vindicate his and his children’s character, and therefore brought tbo matter into Court. He bad never laid his hand on his wife in anger. By Mr Gully : He had never looked Upon the marriage from a business point of view, though he had given bis consent after seeing the will signed. Had made the charge against Meek on information gained from Mr Carr. Carr had told him that Meek had informed him about wbat bad made the substance of these charges. Mr Jelliooe having intimated that he had two other witnesses to call, His Honour adjourned the case till next morning at 10 o’clock. The Court rose at 5.10 p.m.