DRAPERS AT LAW.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume III, Issue 793, 25 August 1916, Page 11

DRAPERS AT LAW.

DAMAGES CLAIMED FOR ALLEGED LIBEL. A WEST COAST CASE. The hearing was resumed in the Supreme Court this morning, before his Honour Mr Justice Henniston and a special jury of 12, of the case in which Ernest James Smith, draper, of Greymouth, proceeded against William McKay, draper, of Greymouth, claiming £IOOO damages for alleged libel. Mr M. Hannan, with him Mr Joyce, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr S. G. Raymond, K.C., with him Mr Sargent, for the defendant. In opening the case for the plaintiff, Mr Joyce said the writ was issued first in Greymouth, and the case was heard there in June last. After a two days’ hearing the jury disagreed. A change of venue was then applied for. Of course, in a small town like Greymouth Mr Raymond: Is this relevant to the case? His Honour: The only facts the jury have to consider are those before them now. After reading the pleadings, Mr Joyce said the defendant carried on business in Greymouth, Hokitika, and Nelson. The rivalry between drapery firms in small towns was very much keener than in larger towns. It was necessary for the plaintiff to prove in addition to libel a publication that the defendant w r as responsible for the anonymous letter. Looking at the letter, he did not think they could find a much stronger evidence of malicious libel. As to the publication His Honour: Publication is admitted, is it not? Mr Raymond: Oh, yes. Mr Joyce said in cases like this it was always difficult to sheet home the authorship of an anonymous letter. In this case he thought that could be done. Other letters, admittedly in the handwriting of McKay, had been put in with the anonymous letter for the purpose of comparison, and experts in handwriting would also be called. He thought the jury would have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the anonymous letter was written by McKay. Mr Raymond said the case resolved itself into one of the identity of the author. The only question for the jury was that of writing. His Honour: There is only one point? Mr Raymond: One point only. I am not going to take advantage of the slightest technical objection. THE WRITING EXAMINED. Henry Francis Dougan, solicitor, of Greymouth, who had had considerable experience in handwriting, said he had gone carefully through the anonymous' letter and had compared the writing with that in letters written by the defendant. The first thing that struck him was that all the letters commenced with the word “To”—“o Mr So and So.” The next was a peculiar way of joining words together. Witness went through the letters in detail, calling attention to these peculiarities where they occurred. Witness considered that the same man wrote all the letters. The similarities were so numerous and so marked that it was impossible that the letters could have been written by different people. To Mr Raymond; Witness was in the office of the plaintiff’s solicitor, but was not there when this action commenced. He was a brother-in-law of the plaintiff’s solicitor. Mr Raymond: In addition to carrying on a legal business you are a publican? Witness: The license is in my name. He considered it a most unusual thing for a man to start his letters “To Mr So and So.” Mr Raymond handed witness a bundle of about 150 letters addressed to Mr McKay, all of which commenced in this way. Witness said that the reason probably was that people replying to Mr McKay followed the same style in address as the manner in which McKay had addressed them. Mr Raymond: As far as we arc able to judge there are letters from 113 different people. Witness: It would not surprise me if there were 213. The anonymous letter was written in smaller characters and more carefully than the others. Defendant had evidently used a different pen or had held the pen flatter. The main characteristics of the writing in all the letters were the same. He did not think McKay was a fast writer, but thought he was a fluent writer. (Proceeding.)