COURT REPORTS

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 6679, 30 November 1908, Page 9

COURT REPORTS

SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 23. SUPREME COURT-CRIMINAL (Before his Hono>- Mr Justice Cooper and juries of twelve) Mr M. Myers prosecuted on behalf of the Crown. ALLEGED ASSAULT. John Butler appeared to answer a charge of having assaulted' Anton Larson on September 17th, 1908, at Wellington, causing actual bodily harm. Prisoner, who had been tried earlier in the week, the jury having disagreed, •pleaded not guilty, and was defended by Mr A. O'Leary. . It was alleged that Larsen, Butler, and his wife were present at accused’s house; Butler resented what he considered was undue familiarity by Larsen towards Mrs Butler and assaulted him, apparently with a tomahawk. Larsen was rendered insensible, and subsequently remarked, when ho was told that Larsen appeared to bo dead, that ho might just as well hang for a sheep as a Jamb. Evidence similar to that given at the first trial was led hy the prosecution. '" Prisoner swore that Larsen had endeavoured to show’ his strength. Ho had caught hold of witness but tripped, and in falling knocked several things off the mantelpiece, including a couple of glasses. Larsen again got hold of accused from behind, witness hunched himself'up and Larsen slipped over his head, striking his'head on the fender and falling amongst the broken glasses. This was how he met. with his. injuries. Ho had been previously convicted of common assault in the: Lower Court. The jury returned to Court after deliberating for four hours and five minutes and informed his Honor that they had been unable to come to an mentThey wore discharged from further attendance, his Honor remarking. that it was'one of those cases. in which a jury could come to a decision one way or the other. ‘ . Mr Myers formally, applied for a retrial, and intimated to his Honor that ho would inform the Court on Monday afternoon or Tuesday what course the Crown proposed to adopt. Tho prisoner was remanded accordingly. ■' IN CHAMBERS (Before his Honor Mr Jusice Chap- ■ man.) AN ALLEGED LIBEL. H cLEAN AND ANOTHER v. THE “ NEW ZEALAND TIMES.” In this case Mr 0. D. Morison appeared for tho plaintiffs, Murdoch McLean, of Auckland, and Neil McLean, of Wellington, and Mr F. G. Daiziell appeared tor the defendant newspaper company. - Tho plaintiffs, in their statement of claim, 'set out that they are publfic works contractors, carrying on business under the stylo or title of “John McLean and Sons.” They entered into a contract with the Minister for Public Works on August Ist, 1907, for the piercing of the Otira tunnel in the County of Westland, through which a portion of the Midland railway will pass. They were large employers of labour, and had manv men employed on these, works. On October 23rd last tho defondant newspaper published a report j of a meeting of the Miners’ Federation I at Wellington, which plaintiffs say was “false, malicious, and defamatory of them, inasmuch that they were accused of compelling their workmen to labour under conditions mimical to their comfort and health. Plaintius claim £2OOO damages, and said they had experienced difficulty, hy reason of tho publication of these statements, in obtaining a sufficient number of workmen to enable them to complete their contract for the construction of the tunnel within tho period.of time in which they are bound to finish it, or pay damages for default in the matter of tho contract. . The defence was an admission of the publication of the matter complained of, hut it was urged that the published words did not mean, and were incapable of the meaning attributed to them by plaintiffs in their statement of. claim and, indeed, were _incncable of any defamatory meaning whatsoever. Further: the words published were not libellous, and were a fair and accurate report of the proceedings of the meeting of the Miners , Federation of Now Zealand and were published hy the defendant company

without malice towards tho plaintiffs, unci that the matters discussed at the meeting in question were mutters of public interest and concern. The defendant company also denied that the plaintiffs had suffered any damage on account of the publication complained of. Tho present summons was an application by Mr Morisoii on behalf of plaintiffs to strike out the fourth paragraph of the statement of defence in the action which declares that the publioation was in the public in forest, was fair comment and therefore was not libellous; iu tho alternative tho summons asked that the question, whether this paragraph amounted to a defence in the action should bo argued beforo the trial. The question involved was really whether the plea of “fair comment” applies t 8 an alleged libel consisting of statements of fact. 1 His Honor refused to strike out tho paragraph referred to and ordered that the question whether or not theplea of “fair comment” was applicable in such circumstances, should bo argued before the trial of tho action. Ho further ordered that the motion for a special jury should stand over sine die, MAGISTRATE’S JURISDICTION (Before Mr W. G. Riddell, S.M.) POLICE CASES.. John Hughes, who was deemed to ho a roguo and vagabond, having been found by night without : lawful excuse on private promises in Feathorston street, was sent to gaol for three inonths. James Reid pleaded not guilty to thoft of a rolled gold watch and chain, valued at £1 10s, tho property of Mathow Prido Bryant. He was remanded until .Monday moretho complainant being indisposed.