THE EVIDENCE CONCLUDED

Taranaki Daily News, 14 December 1932, Page 3

THE EVIDENCE CONCLUDED

INGLEWOOD SLANDER CLAIM COUNTY ELECTION AFTERMATH. DEFENCE WITNESSES ALL HEARD NEW PLYMOUTH TO HAVE FINALE. After occupying seven days, evidence on the claim for £125 for slander brought by Alfred Corkill against Robert Stuart was concluded at Inglewood yesterday before Mr. R. W. Tate, S.M. The final sitting will be taken at New Plymouth on Friday afternoon, when Mr. A. Coleman, in support, and Mr. L. M. Moss, in defence, will submit legal argument. It is alleged that Stuart, the present chairman, during the campaign for the Inglewood county election last May, made certain statements reflecting on Corkill, the former chairman. The statement of claim says: “(1) On or about May 6, 1932, the defendant falsely and maliciously spoke and published of the plaintiff to Harold Richard Marsh and John William Henwood and others the following: (a) Corkill took county men off the roads to do work on his private roadway on his farm, and eight cases of county benzine were given to the men to get to and from the. farm; (b) Corkill was representing the West riding, where he had no interests. All his interests lay in the North riding, and for that reason moneys were, taken from the West riding and spent in the North riding. Work was almost stopped in the West riding, and money spent in the North riding, where he benefited; (c) the council had authorised-£36 to be expended in metalling four chains of the Kupara Road, blit Corkill had 16 chains metalled for the benefit of his own supporters on that road—Stachurski and others; (d) Corkill had the bridge on the Tariki Road built out of the riding funds instead of raising a special loan, and this was for the benefit of Henry Jones because he was a supporter of Corkill;- (e) the chairman had sidetracked unemployment work on the top of the Dudley Road, and, instead, had been to Wellington on several occasions to see the Minister to have the Tarata saddle deviated to nm within a mile of his own farm. He advocated the deviation in order to benefit his own farm. “(2) On or about May 7, 1932, the defendant falsely and maliciously spoke and published of the plaintiff to F. J. Hodges and others whose names are at present unknown to the plaintiff - the following words: (a) The chairman took money from the West riding and had it expended in the North riding because his interests lay chiefly in the latter riding; ■ (b) That Corkill took county surfacemen at Purangi • off the road to work on Corkill’s farm at Tarata, and that, eight cases- of county benzine , were supplied to him to enable him to travel to and from the farm; (c) the words set out in paragraph (1), (b), (c) and Cd) aforesaid. “(3) On or about May 9 the defendant falsely and maliciously spoke and published of the plaintiff to Charles Young and others the following words: (a) Corkill had not any interest in the West- riding; he lived in the North riding, and. therefore could not conscientiously do his duty to ratepayers of the West riding; (b) the words set out in paragraph (1) (d) aforesaid.” THE-DEFENCE PROCEEDS/ .. The cross-examination of John Shields was continued by Mi - . Coleman. Shields evidence had concerned the meetings held by Stuart and'Corkill at Durham Road. He was the iiian who had protested when Corkill connected Stuart with a statement that witness considered Stuart had not made. Cross-examined, he denied that he knew earlier than the Wednesday before the meeting that Stuart would give an address at Durham Road. Z ... Alexander Marshall, farmer, said he attended both meetings at Durham Road. He had previously been asked to give evidence for Corkill,. he said. He had not been a-party man in the matter. When Shields protested at Corkill’s allegation against Stuart he was snapped up pretty quick—jumped on—and told to wait till the meeting was over.” After that no one else protested, but it would not be fair to say that they all agreed with what -Corkill said. Mr. Moss: Did Corkill become excited when answering Shields? Marshall: He certainly did not speak quite normally. Counsel: You were,at Stuart’s meeting? ■■ • ■ •' ' - Marshall: Yes. Counsel: Did you gather from anything Stuart said that he was making allegations of dishonest or improper, conduct against Corkill? Marshall: Certainly not. Counsel: What did Stuart deal with? . Marshall: He was attacking the administration of the county. Counsel: Did he suggest Corkill , was benefiting his own pocket? Marshall: No. Counsel: Or that he was using county money for his own profit? Marshall: No. . ■ Stuart had said Corkill had used county men. for hay-making, proceeded Marshall, but had not inferred that they were being paid by the council for that work. Stuart had made it clear when he said “I am not saying Mr. Corkill did not pay for these' men.” Witness, on being taken through the statement of claim by counsel, denied that. the statements .therein were made in . that form by Stuart. He had made that clear, when he was asked to give evidence for Corkill. Mr. Moss: Did you hear Stuart make any accusation of dishonesty or improper practice against Corkill? Marshall: No. I took his remarks as' criticism of laxity in administration, particularly regarding benzine. THE CROSS-EXAMINATION. To Mr. Coleman: He denied that he had told Mr. Coleman and Corkill in the middle of July that he was reluctant to give evidence on either side. The statement he had then pointed out as incorrect was that Stuart had said the county paid the men working on Corkill’s roadway. Witness denied that he had told Mr. Coleman that Stuart’s denial of a suggestion that Corkill had not paid the men working on his road was made after Stuart’s insinuation had been questioned by a member of the audience. Mr. Coleman: Then can you explain why I took a note of your reply for future use? Mr. Moss: Are you going to give evidence, Mr. Coleman? Mr. Coleman: I am cross-examining now, but I am willing to give evidence. Mr. Moss: You cannot cross-examine on-that point unless you are going to give evidence. Mr. Coleman: I am willing to, but probably you would object? Mr. Moss: No, I would not. Mr. Coleman (to the witness): Do you still deny making the suggestion, though I made a note? Marshall: I say your note is not correct. He said there was nothing in Stuart’s address that a public man, such as Corkill, could have taken exception, to. Witness was at a surprise party' at Shields’ house after the election. Hodges was there, but did not say; that evening

that Corkill was - probably bringing a lawsuit against Stuart. The. information was given him by Hodges at Inglewood a few weeks afterwards. Hodges then said Corkill was suing for £5OOO damages, or something like that. Witness might have replied to the effect that Stuart had said he would not settle such a matter, and that it would have, to go to Court. Witness recalled Corkill saying at his meeting that there would probably be a libel’action, but he did not remember Hodges asking him whether Corkill had said so. Mr. Coleman: Do you deny replying to Hodges, “Yes, I remember that. Oh, well, the statements have been made by Stuart and that’s all about it?” Mr. Moss: A poor way of trying to prove a case. . . Marshall: . Yes. I do deny it. Mr. Coleman: I am calling Hodges to rebut that. ■ Marshall: You can call him. Counsel: He will say these statements were made at Shield’s. party. Do you still deny they were made at the party? AT A SURPRISE PARTY. Marshall: I deny it point blank. There were about 20 people in an 8 by 10 room. Vv’ould they be likely to raise such a subject there? Mr. Moss (to Mr. Coleman): Do you intend to call Mr. Hodges?

Mr. Coleman: Yes. Mr. Moss: He is listening to all this? Mr. Coleman: Yes, Mr. Moss: He is in the court, but you have ordered my witnesses, out. Mr. Coleman: I don’t think it matters much. He has given his evidence in chief. . ■ Mr. Moss: It does matter. . , Marshall, in reply to further questions, denied telling counsel and Corkill in July that Corkill was “a hard man to get on with.” He .had said, there, was “quite a bit” of criticism of Stuarts remarks; . he thought he had made that clear to counsel.-. • . . ■ ■ . Mr. Coleman:. No you.didnt. Did you say you had taken Stuart to tadt?-. Marshall said he had asked Stuart if what he had said about the benzine . .was correct, and if .it . had been given out under Corkill’s administration; . but he denied having taken Stuart to task for going too far in saying, things about Corkill that were undeserved. ... Mr. Moss suggested it was clear , that what Marshall said - at .the interview with Mr. Coleman and Corkill in July was against- them; otherwise they- would have called him. j ■ - ■ ' •■ ■ To Mr. Moss: The Shields party was for a twenty-fifth wedding anniversay. Hodges and he had not discussed the Corkill-Stuart trouble there. The gathering consisted of settlers and their wives, who were in a crowded room. The subject was not one to discuss at an entertainment. He had heard no one else discussing it there. . George Barack, Inglewood county foreman; said he had occupied that position since June 4, 1921. Coldwell, the surfaceman, was a good worker and reliable man who had given good service to the county. He was honest and would not shirk his tasks if left alone on a backcountry road. He recalled - the circumstances of the original issue of benzine to Coldwell. . . . Coldwell later asked his . permission to work on Corkill’s road. Witness .neither gave nor refused permission. lii January He could not.find. Cqldw.ell on the roads and discovered he was on Corkill s. place. He had not been told Coldwell,had been taken off county work; In the first place witness stopped the issue of benzine to Coldwell when he took a contract on one of: the county roads. Coldwell received benzine while working for Corkifi. . The witness was not crossTexamiried.

. . KUPARA’ROAD METALLING.. Recalled by the defence, -Stanley Judd, county engineer, referring to the 16 chains of metalling done on the Kupara Road, said he had meant by his former evidence that if the subsidy were received it would cost the council £37- to £3B, and if not £ll7 14s. The subsidy had hot been received; he • did not expect, the subsidy to be granted srfter this lapse of -time. He produced, a statement showing a cash cost to the_county of very much more than £37. He no said the cash cost of the metalling to the county was £lO3 .- IQs 7d, made, up ,® wages £32 12s Id, plant hire £57 14s 6d, including £35 4s paid to Stratford Motors and Peters and, Scott, and £8 16s for dray, horse ’ and driver (Goble). The balance of the cost was made up. by £l3 4s for material. Therefore he deseed to - remove the misconception .that tne cost to the county was only £37.. To Mr. Coleman: The work would cost the county £37 in cash with the two to one subsidy, 1 ' James Kilpatrick,, county ■ employee, said . that shortly after the county election in May he met .Coldwell, tye surfaceman, near the Inglewood post -offics one morning. Coldwell, who could not have been very long, in the,town, left him to go down to Mr. lan Grafts office., He did not remember Cqrkul .cominp up to: them while he was ; talkipg _to Coldwell, who appeared to be perfectly S °Witness did not - know • why, ■ Coldwell was going to see the solicitor, but learned later. ?.•■ ■ ■ ‘ ' There was no cross-examination., This closed the case for the defence..' Recalled by Mr. - Coleman, Frank .J. Hodges,-farmer, said he. was present.'■at both Stuart’s and Corkill’s meetings at Durham Road; Marshall wasjt both meetings, too. The first occasion he spoke to Marshall of the Cbrkill-Stuart trouble was on the day of the election. Marshall was with Kaye at the Farmers' saleyards at Inglewood. > “What did you . think'of Alif s .address last night?”, said witness to Marshall.*/ , “Oh, just the same as I always have done,” replied Marshall. ‘-That he is a very difficult man to get on with. Hodges had replied: Blit, goodness me, he had a complete ansWer for everything that Bob brought, against him? - Marshall: Oh, yes, but he didnt mention Jack, Rowan’s , contract at Rowan’s. After a few more, remarks witness had finished the conversation by saying, “Well, in my opinion the trouble with Bob is that he is lazy.” Mr. Moss: And too good-natured? . • OBJECTION TO QUESTIONS. Addressing the magistrate, Mr. Moss pointed out that none of these questions had been put to Hodges during:his examination in chief— - .• Mr. Coleman:. Because.l didn’t, know they were going to be raised. . Mr. Moss: And I think I have the right to object to them. The second mention of the matter was at a surprise party at Shields’ place about six weeks after the election,’ continued Hodges. Some time after 11.30 p.m. witness and Marshall happened to be alone-on-a back porch. ... “Do you know that Alf is bringing a court case against Bob?” said witness. Marshall seemed to be a little surprised at the announcement. He gave an involuntary start. .“Bob who?” he asked. “Bob Stuart, of course,”, witness had replied. “You remember Alf saying at his Durham Road meeting that there would most likely be a libel action?” . Marshall replied that he-did remember, and added that Bob had said the only way to settle. it was to go to court — or words to that effect. “Well, there is going to be an action,” said witness. “Oh, well," replied Marshall, “the statements have been made and that is all about 'it.” . ‘ . Mr. Moss: K object., V The magistrate: These questions could have been asked during' evidence-in-chleL

Mr. Coleman: Has Marshall's remark , to you any importance, in: this case. _ Hodges said he thought so.-astiie im- . pression left with him was that Marshall was purely neutral, Mr. Moss: / And, he certainly was not taking, sides in a libel-action?' Hodges:-.'No. ■ Possibly Marshall’s surprise at.-leam- : ing of the libel action ; was gepiune. - gave an involuntary start. L. Mr. Moss: You- say “possibly? know, that Marshall is 'recognisea. throughout the . district as a , man?” ■ ' , Hodges:) Up to the present. ■ ‘ - 7 .• ? Counsel: Why “Up to the present? It seems this case has altered'your opinion of him? *- * Hodges: Yes. • Counsel: You have been in Coriolis company a great -since the-<c£se ...- started... A’l “And I may say I am very proud to be in his company,” said Hodges./ Mr. Moss: But we thought you were non-partisan. .Now you show you' are not. . ;■ “UNTIL THEN I WAS NEUTRAL.” Hodges: I have only , been : since I heard Corkill, give hii in rebuttal of Stuart’s charge. UntiLthen I was . neutral. I voted for one, or Stuart’s candidates., . Mr. Moss: > Because he was a close per-sonal'friend-of- yours? ««« ■ Hodges: No, an acquaintance. He -yras not a close personal friend. ; Mr. Moss: At his meeting you didn J show any objection to what. Stuart ,sai • Hodges: Yes. Tasked Brown one question at Stuart’s meeting. Brown had left a certain impression about a matter, .m facts of which I knew. It was question asked at;Stuart’s meeting, .and the answer, both from Brown and Stu-, • art, was entirely in my favour. Mr. Moss: In other words, they were.-;,, wrong and you were right - Hodges: I was right because T knew the facts. ' ‘ ‘ He explained that he had; : them at Inglewood. . .x.- - til* Mr. Moss: So you had a sitting snotr Hodges: ,Yes. ' 'J’x - He admitted' that he had., gone 'hofl» 7 from the meeting in Stuarts car. jHq - considered he had no occasion to show any exception to Stuart had. ; saia at the meeting. It was' not his, usual practice. He generally liked to find out ; the facte before' he stated his, .ease. ~- . ,' MrJ Moss: What you >ant; to’ «y “ that, your' demeanour only appeared ; io | be cool? ' Hodges: Exactly so. . - ; Mr. Moss: And yet you accepted’ Stuart’s hospitalilty and . went hpme car? . ■ Hodges: Yes. ? I do. hot bear anybody, animosity. ( • // ■ ? Mr. Moss: We had better leave that.to. , the magistrate. I see he is making * few notes while you are in , Witness denied that since .this case commenced he had. ■spoken to other ratepayers who had been at Stuart s meet-, ing with the object of getting give evidence for Corkill. He had astafcd one man ’(Wood), but when he found that he was- not willing to do 30 he..immediately left Wood alone and told him he was very wise indeed. _, - ' • Mr. Moss: The-same as Mr. Coleman - was when he. dropped Marshall. , You approached another man. on the wne subject? : A JT Hodges: Mention the name,, and-1 will try toremember. ./ • Mr. Moss: Borland. / Hodges: I mentioned the matter to Borland/"but he was not at' CorkiH’s 1 meeting. nt Counsel:’-But he was at Stuart s meet- ' 4 ; :. . . , .

Witness: Yes. ' . Counsel: And don’t you think, that one of those, .present at Stuart’s meeting the; magistrate might haye -Idced. to have heard him? Hodges: Yes. Counsel: Did you. see anyone. else?. Hodges: I don’t think I did, but may I just- state here that we have a good number- of obedient husbands— ■ Mr. Moss: Now, Mr. Hodges, there are some, things we. don’t ’go ’ into-.'.in, court. - .. ■ ’