AN INTERESTING CROSSACTION.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 4869, 7 February 1894, Page 3

AN INTERESTING CROSSACTION.

o In the Resident Magistrate's Court thia morning (before Mr R. Beetham, R.M., and Mr E. Weatenra, J.P.), Jamea A. Williams sued Frederick C. Raphael for J>2o damages, for entering his premises, taking away a document and upsetting some curios, &c. Mr Stringer, acting for Mr William Bruce, laid an information, under the Justices of the Peace Act, against Williams for exhibiting in his window an offensive i writing. Mr Stringer said Williams had a shop at Sumner, in which an offensive notice waa posted. At the bottom of the notice appeared the wordß, •' Apply to Mrs | Bruce, near Opawa." ; William J. Bruce said that he was living | at Sumner for some time in the house next Ito Williams' shop. He had not seen the notice himself, but several persons had spoken to him about it in Christchurch. His residence was at Opawa, and he considered the reference to Mrs Bruce I offensive. Frederick Raphael said that Mr Bruce had spoken to him about this notice, and asked him to go and ccc Williams. Wit* I ness spoke to Williama's partner, but; as he did not Beein inclined to do anything, witness tore the notice down. Witness did not take- or disturb any curios. James Moir, who was with the last witness, gave corroborative evidence. Williamß then went into the box. Ho said the notice was his own production, : and was put there to amuse people. It i Beemed to take on the beach. [ To Mr Stringer : He had used the same of Bruce because it was a good historical I name. He had mentioned Opawa because I the " toffa ** lived there. Mr Beetham : What do you mean by "toffs?" Witness t Persons with high notion?. To Mr Stringer : Witness knew that Mr Bruce lived at Opawa, but he did not mean anything offensive by the notice. Mr Stringer said he would suggest that the ca3ebe adjourned in order to give the defendant an opportunity of removing the notice, as at present a fac-simile of the notice produced was posted up. Mr Beetham : Is there another notice of the same kind posted up ? Defendant: Yes. Mr Beetham : In the opinion of the Bench, the notice is moat disgusting. Defendant : lam rery pleased to have your opinion, and ifi you consider the notice ought to be removed J will do it. Mr Stringer, continuing, said that with regard to the civil action brought by Williams, the law wa.3 very clear. Their Worships would remember the oelebrated case of Beresford v. Hope, in which the plaintiff had exhibited a valuable picture, but one which w»3 libellous. The defendant walked into the place where the picture was exhibited, draw his sword and cut it to pieces. In an action brought afterwards, it was held that defendant's action waa perfectly justified. The Bench said that if Williams would undertake to remove the notice the caso would be adjourned, and he would not hear any more of it ; but if it remained there he would be called up for sentence. With regard to the civil action brought by Williams, judgment would bo given for the defendant, with costs,