MURITAI SLANDER ACTION.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXII, Issue 4826, 2 December 1902, Page 3

MURITAI SLANDER ACTION.

£l«;j DAMAGKS A WARDED,

Yesterday Uj‘‘ Dhmf Justice ami a common juty oi lv. elve look up Du* hearing ot an action in which Homy ravage, laud agma., etc., MmuUu, sued John Coomljo, builder, same place, to i-i tovci' .LGOH damages ior .•-iau'J ho won).!) complained of wore .said to have been used regarding plaini!ii i/i jus cawinn y as at Muriiai, at a public meeting held there on the bth August, to diseu.-s the appointment cd ;t rancor ami other matters. it was alleged that im had slated in iho presence and hearing of others, ‘■lt is scandalous the way tin nest office is conducted, and if people do not mu about shitting the po->t olhc; I wdi do it myself, for if they' knew as much as I do, they would never have.’ iiner h*tler.-» pass tnrotigh his liands. I have not used the post otliee for over t«o 3 uin. 1 have been asked to Like tlie post oilier, by tho head man, Mr Gray, f/tt. it did not suit me. They won u not leave their h-tti.us Iviug there over night if they km>v/ all.” Defendant was a)so stud to have stated of plaintiff: “lie is a liar, a thief, a scoundrel and r. low little mean animal and a cur. Hi.- ha-; robbed i.he Kdm-ation Board and robbed the 1 iee!mr, and lias made use of tel'-grams sent- through ins office from t)m balneation Board. Be has ree- ivi d CbO a year from the Rducadnn Ihaivd. n;dd Miss Strong 10s a we.-k and kept *tbe rot." M.e-u- Wi.lerd nod .Holton appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Skcrretb defended. John Sutherland Boss, carpenter, who was working at Munu-.i at the time, was the first willies-, called, and deposed to having attended the meeting m tpieslion and to having heard deiendant make use of the alleged slander after 'discussing iho question of a ranger. Thr-V(! were some sixteen or nineteen people present, and tho defendant, who was chairman, explained that now that ho was‘hi full-blown J.P.,”he had taken it upon himself to call the meeting. AS Idle defendant was speaking Messrs "Wills and Dymnek, who were present, warned him (<» ho careful, but witness could not say if defendant heard them. In roply in Mr Skerrctt, witness sa*u ,that plaint Ilf spoke to him next day about what had taken place. Defendant, in using (lie expression “scandal,' 7 did not ref<*r to the action of the postal authorities in not holding an inquiry into the comp! tints regarding Muritai post olkcm Witney was not provious y aware that defetukant was chairman of the school committee and that plaintiff got ;GCD a year from the "Education. Board for running the school.

Corroborative evidence was g 1 von by Edwin Dymock, J.lonry Humphreys and David J. Dick. The latter testified to having hoard defendant apply the epithets “liar/* ‘‘scoundrel,” “thief” towards plaintiff. In cross-examination by Mr bo deposed to having heard "Wills say “Pavnge will bo able tr> twist you around his finger to-morrowthat was in reference to school committee matters. Witness admitted having heard that Savage and another had purchased two sections 'the Education "Hoard was after. Ke had signed a petition tO' get his letters from the Hntt. Wesley Whisker, 'bus driver, gave evidence to having iieard the wordu complained of, outside the soUuolhouso. Henry Savage, liio plaintiff, deposed that lie was postmaster at MuHtai. and also a laud agent. In consequence of what lie heard had taken place at Iho public meeting of the 6th August ho instructed his solicitor, Mr Bolton, to write to the defendant, and a letter was written demanding an apology and payment of a substantial sum as solatium, in default of which a writ would be issued. This closed the plaintiff’s case. His Honor observed that ho did not see that tlio second cause of action came within tho moaning of slander. It did not mean robbery in the ordinary sense—only that plaintiff kept tne balance because ho was looking after tho school. Mr Skerretfc applied to have tho plaintiff nonsuited on the second cause. His Honor, in complying, remarked that it was merely vituperation, and he did not sec any cause under tho second heading; tho first did show a cause of action. Mr Skerretfc having opened the defence, evidence was called. Frank Wills, managing clerk for Mr Izard, solicitor, ami who resides paruy at Muritai, was tho first witness called by Air Skerrctt, and deposed that he was present at tho meeting in question, After dealing with the subject of tho ranger, a discussion followed with regard to tho school site, and reference was also made to a petition which had been got wp for tho purpose of having tlio post office changed to another part of the district and a now postmaster appointed. Mr Coombo observed that it was a scandalous thing that no attention had been paid to the petition by the postal authorities, and ho spoke indignantly about tho way tho people had boon treated. Defendant mentioned something about having no confidence in tho present postmaster, and referred to certain information contained in a telegraphic message from tho secretary of tho Education Hoard to himself, which lie said had got abroad, and that he could not understand how it could have got abroad except the plaintiff had it from tho Education Board, or learned it in his official capacity. Defendant expressed himself quite sure that a groat many people in tho district had lost confidence in the postmaster. Cross-examined by Air Wilford the witness said ho had no recollection of having told the defendant “to,bo careful,” or any words to that effect, neither did he recollect the defendant making use of tho words “scoundrel,.' “liar,” ‘Tow, lying, mean animal.”

Sarah Wright, married woman, deposed to having heard defendant say “it was scandalous such a man should ho ahlo to retain his position ns postmaster considering all the complaints that had boon made against him.” Defendant also stated that some telegraphic information sent to him must have been used, except plaintiff got the same. She had no recollection of hearing the other words complained of. She heard defendant say with reference to plaintiff, “What shall I call him?” proceeding to say, “a little animal,” or words to that effect, on which Mr Wills interjected, “tut, tut,” Herbert Wright, TSartclo Russo and Walter Watson testified to having been present at the mooting and to not having beard the words complained of. The defendant. John Ooombe, gave evidence that the expression he used with refonce to the post office was that “It was scandalous some action was not taken after all the complaints that had been made.” Ho mentioned with regard to the telegram that plaintiff must hare made use of the telegram sent to witness unions he got a similar one himself. Plaintiff did get such a telegram. Witness denied having made use of the words “liar,” “scoundrel,” etc.

It was true he stated th it plaintiff had told lies aherib the >onool -tr.e, w'm that lie (wit mhad not uw d tie- post oflie<; to i>fe:L let.iets -'oiywo v«-ajv, before. in answer to Air Wilford, ho udmH-.-d having referred to plaintiff as a litlh* animal.” Counsel on both sides having addressed the jury, his Honor summed up. The jury, after less than half an hour’s absence, found a verdict for pbfnDff, with £25 damages. Judgment was mitered accordingly, with twelve guineas costs, witnesses 7 expenses and disbursements.