AN ELECTION ECHO.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXVI, Issue 10401, 15 July 1912, Page 7

AN ELECTION ECHO.

SIMSON V. .HAWKE’S BAY

TRIBUNE

Press Association. Wellington, July 14

His Honor the Chief Justice, Sir Robert Stent, yesterday in Banco heard a motion for a new trial in the case of Horace lan Simson, of Havelock North, sheep farmer, plaintiff, and the Tribane 00., Ltd , Hastings, defendants. Mr B. J, Dolan and Mr H IT. Ayscn appeared for H £. Simeon, and Mr O. F. Skerrett and Mr W. G. Wood for the Tribune Oo The case was heard at Hastings on 11th and 12th March of this year.' The motion was made on plaintiff’s behalf for a new trial on tue ground that titejdamages were too email and the verdict of the jury was not unanimous as providad n by the Juries Act, 1908; that the statement of facts alleged by the foreman of the jury to have been found proved by the jury were not put into writing and signed by bim, such statement being in the nature of a special verdict on which subsequent legal argument should take place as arranged by "counsel and directed by the judge; that the findings of the jnryjwere so defective that the jndge could notgglve^jndgmentSuponJtfaem; tbajptbe foreman of the 3 ary entered the courtroom after the expiration of three hours from the time of the jury’s retiring, stating be bad been deputed by the jury to ask the judge a question with reference to the issues, and that the foreman did not put the question nor did be again return to ,tbe jury , room,|and that three members of the jury who had dissented from|tho findings were under the Impression on arriving in the courtroom that such questions had been pat and answered, and that the foreman had the judge’s permission to take a threefourths verdict, and that therefore they remained tacit whan the foreman announced the alleged verdict, whereas he bad not obtained such permission; and that the findings of the jury on certain of the issues were against the weight of^evidenceZ The case consisted of a libel action brought by the plaintiff Simson against the Hawke’s Bay Tribune. The issues submittea to the jury and their answers on that occasion were as follows:—(1) Is the paragraph published in the Tribune a libel on the plaintiff?~Ye3. (31 Has the paragraph the meaning alleged by the plaintiff?—Yes. (3) Is the paragraph true if it has such a meansog?H-Yes. ( 4) Did the plaintiff lUiDecember, 1905, assault Henderson Garrick, a reporter, as alleged?—Yes. (5) Did plaintiff on 14th May, 1909, assault one Victoria Wentheimer aa alleged?—No. (6) Did the plaintiff in July, 1907, assault if. Oorbould, aa alleged?—Yes. What damages, if any, la plaintiff entitled to recover? One farthing. After the verdict had been given, the case was adjourned for further consideration as Jto whether judgment should or should not go for the defendant, the point being raised that the findings were inconsistent in that the jury had found there was a libel, and that the newspaper paragraph published was rule. Mr Skerrett now moved for jadgm nt to be entered up for the defendant company Ha said the fiadiug.oS damages had beau conditional on the assessment brought la by the jury in case His Honour should revise his direction aa to justification. Mr Dolan, supporting his case, held that the verdict was inconsistent in that libel had been found for the plaintiff on the main issues. He was entitled to damages. He moved accordingly for a new trial. Mr Skerrett, in reply, said Shat the plea that the damages were too small was based on the assumption that the verdict was for the plaintiff, and not for the dafeudnat. He also said that the practice of the Court long establ shed had been Lo‘ to interfere in a case where further damages had base ralurned. Replying to further contentions,, he said that the whoia oircums. stances of the case had bsea before the jury, and that. tn*re had been no room for the statement that ttisre had been a want of consideration of the real issues of th-> facts in controversy, and no possible mistake in the application of the law could have bans mads, Tha ruu*regarding a ’‘defective” finding of the jury was that it was to be read sensibly As to whether a verdict was against the weight ci evidence, the true rule in this matter had already been laid down by Hia Honour in ,th« ease of Massey v. New Zealand T and since confirmed by the Privy Council, At the cob lesion of the case Mr Doiaa lurthar formally moved for judgment for plai" t:ff H:s Honour complimented counsel on their concise reasoning, and said he would give hie judgment in a few days.