SUED TOR SLANDER

NZ Truth, Issue 606, 27 January 1917, Page 7

SUED TOR SLANDER

. ■ r-» — - - - , A CARRIER a« CASH , - : : ■■■■■■ "^ ■■ ■.■.■.■'■■■« ." .. ■":: " ■ ■ ..> - — »■ ■ ■' ■ ...■'.■.-■'■.■] WERE THE WITNESSES WILLING ? | ■ ; ' '■■ . ■ . . . ■ .- , • • . ■ :' ■ . ' ( An Adjournment till Monday '■ .■ ."-•■■■'. ' — - ' •■> (From "Truth's" Chriatchurch Rep.)

In the Magistrate's Court at Chrlatchurch on Monday, before Mr. T. A. B. Bailey, S.M., Albert Harwood, carrier, New Brighton, claimed £200 damages from George D. Gowie, dairy farmer, for alleged slander. , Mr. Johnston represented the plaintiff and Mr. Alpers appeared for defendant. The statement of claim set out that on September 2 the defendant maliciously apoke and published to T. Qriften, ; CONCJBSRNINa; THE PLAINTIFF, the following words: "The .carter_ I had sold seven sacks ot my chaff to Hampton and kept the money, and X never would have known tt, only Hampton came>back to me for some iuoto at the same price." It was further alleged that on September 27 defendant said to Hampton: •"Broncho' sold eleven bags of chaff to Tom Lester and kept the money. I can prove thfc aa I hare got the receipt." £100 ww claimed, m regard of each statement. Mr. Johnston, m outlining the case for the plaintiff, said the decision weald have been a simple one bnat that several undercurrents /had been at work since tho proceedings started, end there may be some difficulty with the witnesses. Herbert Edgecombe, the first witness called, failed' to appear. Tom Griffin, traction engine-driveT, was then called. He said he was at ,Go>frle's sawmills m Moorhouse-av-enue about the middle of September. Mr. Johnston: About that tone did Gowie make a statement to you concerning the plaintifTT— No. Well, concerning some person who hsd been In hla employ?— Yes, concerning a carter. He said some chaff had been missing and that the cartei; had taken it and sold it to someone. He did not mention anything about the proceeds of tho alleged sale. Can you romember tho man to whom he said the chaff was sold? — No. It you saw something you wrote m September would it assist your memory?— Yes. Mr. Johnston produced a memo. In which witness had written that Gowie said his carter had Bold the chaff to a man named Hampton and kept the money. Witness would not, however, ■wear to the accuracy of what he wrote about the carter keeping the 'money. y \ Mr. Johnston applied to have the Witness treated as hostile and, In answer to the S.M. as .to show he came to make the , statement, witness said plaintiff came to him and said, ho had two witnesses to prove that he (witness) had used tho words and that he would be summoned If he did not sign the statement!.

Mr. Johnston: Well, were you lying a OR SPEAKING THE TRUTH ' when you made a similar statement m j my office? — I made it, but I must have- , been under a misapprehension. , When did Gowie ask you not to Bay 1 those words? — -He .never asked me. , Now is it true that Gowie said, "that j carter of mine sold the chaff and kept , the proceeds"?— l don't remember anything being said about the proceeds. . Did you see Edgecombe this morning?— No. ' .; Did you see Gowie? — Yes. / . The S.M. : Did you speak to him?— I lust asked him how he was getting on. " ■ " .■-*■ ." ( ' : -. .■ :' , £ You're friendly with' Gowie, yet, , while you were outside the court you ; said nothing except "How are you"?— No. • Mr. Johnston: You've made the statement three times that Gowie said Harwood had kept the proceeds. Did he say it or not?-—* can't remember. Did you ring me up and say that if yon gave evidence it might Interfere with your work-?— -I might feare 'said that. " ■: Will you swear you arid Gowie haven't talked this matter over?— Yes. The S.M. : I cannot say I believe you. Mr. Johnston: When Gowie used the words about the chaff having been taken, did you understand it to be Harwood who was referred to?. • After about five infantes' heckling, the witness answered m the affirmative. The S.M.: Your memory, when you wrote down this damning statement, must have been fresher than it Is now. Why did you put it down if you cannot now be sure of it?— lt most have been a misunderstanding. .Cross-examined, witness said the' first he knew of there being trouble In the air was when Harwood brought him a typed statement and said he would summons him for making the statement if he did not sign it. Witness did not sign, but took the typed document. Harwood came again and eald tho statement would have to be fixed up and that m order to dear himself he (witness) would have to got another witness. He advised witness to go and get Edgecombe to back bis statement. Harwood on that occasion took the unsigned statement away with him and subsequently made an appointment to go to Edgecombe with witness. Witness, however, did not turn up and later that day Harwood brought him a signed statement, purporting to be signed by Edgecombe. Harwood said he had placed the words and Edgecombe signed it. Tho'statement was to the effect that Edgecombe was present and heard Gowie make a statement to witness.

At this stage, witness informed the sourt that when Haxwood brought him a. typed statement m the first instance, he signed it when it was left «rith him. After that, Harwood told fitness to f COPY AND SIGN THE STATEMENT and he did so. Harwood, still threatening to summons witness, sent him to , Lawyer Johnston's office, where he caade another statement. Nobody threatened witness with the loss of -his |ob at Swanson's, but he made that an excuse to try and get himself out of the :ase. Ec had occasionally worked for oowie. When witness said he could aot recollect the date of Gowle's statement, Harwood suggested that he had frequently made it. . After the luncheon adjournment the witness Griff en was further cross-ex-unined. .He said that when Gowie made use of certain words m the statement to htm, nobody else was within bearing. Mr. Alpers: Why did you' conclude that Gowie meant Harwood when he spoke of a carter? — I cannot say. I thought it might have been Harwood to whom he referred. Did you speak to Edgecombe about It? — I may have, but I don't remember the statement I made to him. Ib it possible that m speaking to him about Gowie's statement you added something he did not say? — I may have done so. Ido not remember. j Witness further said that Gowie, in' the original statement did not mention names, nor anything about the proceeds from the. alleged sale of the chaff. . ■ !. • Did Gowie use the word "stolen"?— l can't swear that he did. Mr. Johnston: Do you swear that Edgcombe was not there when Gowie made the statement? — Yes, Edgcombe can prove he was not there. The SJtf;: You mean Edgcombe can swear he was not there. -Mr. Johnston: Do you swear that you never told me m my office that Edgcombe was there?— He wasn't there. If I said he was I did so unintentionally. Did not Harwood put It to you that you and Edgcombe had been talking to each other at the hotel about what Qowie had told both of you? — No, Harwood said I had made a statement to Edgcombe and that he had two witnesses to prove it. Where did, you tell Edgecombe? — At the Lancaster Park Hotel. The S.M.: What did you tell him ; there?— l don't know what I- told him. Mr. Johnston: Did not Harwood tell I you that if you did not tell him who originally made the statement to you, HE WOULD SUE YOU for spreading the report?— He said he would sue me all right. Gowie at this stage was seized with a fit of coughing and left the court. After he had been out a few minutes,' Mr. Johnston went to the door and alleged that he had caught the defendant talking to a witness m the vestibule. The defendant denied having done so, and explained that, he was speaking to Mrs, Edgcombe, whose husband had not answered his subpoena that morninfe. Mr. Johnston protested that Gowie had been speaking to one of the witnesses. John Hampton, laborer, said he recollected Gowie making a statement to him at a stated tlmo, place and date, when witness was with Edgcombe, who, however, left the cart and went into a store. Gowlo also got out of his cart and came over to witness. Gowie, who was a little under the influence of drink, said his carter had taken some chaff and sold it to a Mr. Lester at Brighton. Witness replied that he did not think such a thing probable. He told Harwood what Gowie had said, although ho had no idea that a slander case would come of it. Mr. Johnston: Did Gowie refer to any special carter? — Yes, he said the carter "Broncho." Isn't Harwood known as "Broncho"? — I didn't know then. Was the word "proceeds" mentioned? — No. He said something about receipts. \ Did you "understand that the chaff i •finned to was stolen? — Of course, r.-r.'t that what all the disturbance* is :i.'"U»t? LMcl Edgcombe tell you something? — i "■'pp. ' I !:i this written statement of yours j <;:n— «.Tt?~ Yen. Vlio statement was to the effect that f.'iwlo had told witness that ''Broncho" HnnvooU had sold eleven aacks of chnf* to Lister and kopt the proceeds. It was also Htated that "Broncho" had j tu-vcr nold witness any chaff.' Mr. .Tohnaton: la that statement cor-rt-ct? — Yea. Cro.ifl-exnmined, witness said that e.Uinuirrh the word "proceeds" was In li!* Htntoment. ho could not now recol- j \t-r\ Onwltt having ÜB«d It. notwithstanding his MEMORY HAVING BEEN* '\ REFRESHED j Uv the production of tho statement. ! Wlincw guvo ibo «iUucin«nt because he j

was wild with Gowie for breaking his windows. •. . Mr. Johnston: What was the reason of Gpwie coating to wreck your house? Was it not because you had- told Harwood what GovWe had said?— lf it was 1 it was poor spite. . "Was it not because you -were a witness against him?— -It might have been, but I did -not give the statement till after that, otherwise I would not have given it. ' .■•'-, . The S.M.: According' to: the •information, the windows were broken on October 6, five days after you made the statement. So* you see your reason for making the statement cbuld not have been because you were wild with -'Gowie for breaking my windows. Harry Scott was called, but it was decided that he should stand down, and, if necessary, be called m rebuttal. Mr. Johnston closed his case, sayings that he would do without Edgcombe, who was an apparently unwilling witness, V

Counsel for the defence said that "after the obvious inferences drawn from Edgcombe'4 absence, he would aak for an adjournment rather than that his client's interests should stand a chance of being prejudiced by the wltnesa'B non-attendance. Edgcombe was working 1 at Rakala and his motor bike had probably broken down. The S.M. also said he would liko to hear ICdgcombe. und the case was accordingly adjourned till next Monday. It is understood that an arrangement Is pending between the respective counsel for a settlement of the matter out of court. ' 1