GROCOTT V. THACKRAH

Waikato Argus, Volume XXXV, Issue 5549, 5 March 1914, Page 4

GROCOTT V. THACKRAH

Yesterday—Before Mr E. Kawson, S.M. Geo. F. Jenkinson, photographer, Hamilton, gave similar testimony as to the quality of plates from corresponding batches, exposed by him without in the last two or three days. They were just as good as the plates he was using every day. He also corroborated previous witnesses as to interior exposures. Shown the wedding group negative, he was sure it was not a fresh plate. The fogging of the edge, due to age, did not afreet the photo. Plates properly kept might be good enough after being kept five or six years. Plates were made under such perfect conditions nowadays that according to his experience there was no such thing as a bad plate. Re-examned: Nobody could say whether the wedding group was a Pagnt Prize plate or not. Jas. W. C. Dunn, in the employment of Grocott, said that to say that he had ever remarked that Grocott had "palmed off" the plates was an absolute lie. He quoted a price to Thackrah, and sent to the other branch for the plates. Cross-examined: Tne price quoted was two guineas for the dozen. He had never heard of any fluid being spilt over them. He never said anything about Grocott being glad to get rid of the plates. He could not imagine himself saying such a thing. (Laughter)..He had never said that Thackrah might defy Grocott to sell these plates, as he could not get sixpence a packet for them. That was on a par with the other statements.

Donald G. Meredith, in the employment of Grocott, said that when Thackrah photographed Manning's Pharmacy stand in the Winter Show, he gave an exposure of only about six seconds. Witness gave further evidence in corroboration of Mr MacDiarmio's opening statement. Regarding the conversation between Grocott and Skipworth and Thackrah he had a suspicion of what the subject was, and that was why he listened. He might have been called away, though he did not remember being so. Some of the conversation might have escaped his hearing. Thackrah's photo of the Winter Show was taken in the afternoon, and if Mr Thackrah said it was taken before lunch he was mistaken. The lighting conditions were not good. He remembered there was no sunlight. Henry E. Gaze, photographer, Hamilton, said he had been in business for 14 years in Hamilton. His experience of the Paget Prize plate was that it was particularly good. His firm used them regularly, getting them through an Auckland firm. He had never had any failures through deteriorated plates of that make. Dealing with a consignment got two years ago last November he had used them with satisfactory results. Quite recently he had pur-

chased the balance of that consignment. The average exposure for their Winter Show photos was five minutes. The lowest they had given was one minute with a -100 plate. Under-exposure frequently caused fogging, and another common cause was leakage in the camera. Light affecting the plates, that should not be aMowed, was the most common cause. Cross-examined: They had to study each exhibit separately. People in the stalls were never considered. They had very few requests for attendants to be photographed. Mr MacDiarmid said he did not wish to call Mr Thackrah, but having stated his intention, he would not object to Mr de la Mare recalling him. Mr Thackrah, recalled, said, in reply to Mr de la Mare, he used the Royal Standard plates for the first time on 3rd April. He complained on the sth to Mr Grocott. He could not between the third and the fifth have tried the three packets of Paget Prize and given a bulk order. He invariably asked about the age of plates he purchased. The bad photo produced was taken in the supper room of the Town Hal), where there was no daylight. He gave a flash with the three lights burning. Asked by the Magistrate why he did not bring his claim before, witness said it was because he had been in a small struggling way of business. This was a double action for damages and slander. He first heard about the slander in July. He was loth to come into Court. Had Mr Grocott met his offer fairly there would have been an end of the trouble. Why didn't you bring the action for damages sooner, and not wait till Grocott sued on his claim? —You might as well ask why Grocott did not sue me. 1 was acting under the advice of a solicitor. This closed the evidence as to the warranty, and the other part was adjourned till 7.30. On resuming at half-past seven Thackrah was asked by the Magistrate what other photos he took except those of the Winter Show, and replied that he took several negatives of the wedding group. He used ten dozen of the half-plates. It was at the Winter Show that he struck a bad patch. He used six of the full plates outside the show, at Rototuna. None of them were good, one being particularly bad. The bulk of the ten dozen were good, but showed signs of age more or less.

Mr de la Mare then led on the case of alleged Blander, the second part of the counter-claim. The slander, he alleged, was made by Grocott to Mr Cochrane, whom he would call to prove that he used the words alleged to him. lie understood there would be a difficulty. They were not themselves in touch with Mr Cochrane in the matter, but anticipated his evidence would be such as would show him to be an adverse witness. Should that be so, he would lead evidence to prove contradictory statements. Assuming they were able to show by the evidence that certain words were used, they had one piece of corroborating evidence. Mr Cochrane wan a creditor of Thackrah, and in consequence of what was said Mr Cochrane pressed for the payment of his money, Since that the amount had been settled, not as a result of the slander. For the counter-claim it was alleged Grocott used words which affected claimant's business. If such a statement waß made it was a slander "perse," on which they were entitled to claim general damages. The fact that as a result pressure was brought to bear gave certain ground of special damage. They simply claimed general damages. Mr MaclJiarmid submitted that not only had it to be shown that Cochrane was an adverse witness, but that he was averse to telling the truth.

Mr de la Mare did not dispute that.

("has. Edgar Cochrane, builder, formerly residing in Hamilton, said he knew Thaekrah very well. He attributed no sinister meaning to that. He ha'J known him for 18 months, Thaekrah having rented two rooms from witness. He stayed there nine or ten months. Witness' account with Thaekrah was cleared for the time being last week, but there was a promissory note to meet in three months. After if he remembered going into Grocott's main shop about 25th June, witness admitted going into the shop, but could not remember the date. It was in June alter the Winter Show, He could not remember what he went in for. He could not swear to the actual words which passed. They were discussing Thaekrah, whose name cropped up over plates. There was a pull up about the show plates being no good. Grocottsaid: 'You know Mr Thaekrah? and he said, "1 know him pretty well for I advanced money to purchase a place for him, l'rom Mr Cartwrighi." Grocott said it was a pity he had done so on poor security. Then there were some words used which witness could not swear to | now. He could not remember anyI thing of an incriminating nature.

The Magistrate: Let me judge of that. What was the effect?—Grocott said there was some trouble

about the plates, and Thackrah was disputing an account. That was all that passed so far as he could remember Witness being asked if he had since made any contradictory statement, the Magistrate intervened and said he was not satisfied with the manner in which witness was giving evidence. Therefore Mr de la Mare would be allowed to crossexamine.

Continuing, witness said there being two quarterly payments due he subsequently called on Thackrah. He spoke to him in the studio, lie had a slight recollection of asking for

money in witness' own house, where Thackrah had two rooms. He could not rememoer the conversation at that interview. Witness was asked if he remembered that he told Thackrah that Grocott had given him a bad name, called him a rogue and a scoundrel, and said he would be bankrupt within a fortnight; and that Thackrah said if Grocott had said that he would have him up for slander. Witness replied that he remembered the conversation, but could not remember the words suggested. On the following Tuesday at the studio there was another conversation which he could not swear to. It was suggested that witness had stated that Grocott had told him on that occasion that what Tliackrah owed was in jeopardy. Witness said he remembered referring to certain words used by Grocott,.in the presence of Thackrah and Mr de la Mare, and saying "it was something like that." Witness went straight away to Mr Grocott, who distinctly denied ever using the alleged words. He returned to Thackrah and told him so, and said he had made a mistake, and would have nothing more to do with it. Then Mr de la Mare came down and got on to him about it. At least he reckoned it was after that, but he would not swear it. He did not sugges that Mrde la Mare wanted to raise litigation. Mr MacDiarmid: Did Mr Grocott use words similar to those quoted, and to the effect that Thackrah was on the verge of bankruptcy, and that the Kodak Company had stopped his supplies?—l cannot swear to it, hut he might have used some words to that effect. The quarterly payments referred to were not pud. he never attempted to get any moneys that were not due. By the Magistrate: What Grocott had said had no effect in sending him to ask for his money, £29. He was going that day anyhow. He had asked for the first quarterly instalment often before that. The claimant, Thackrah, was the next witness. He said on Sunday, 29th June, Cochrane came to the door of his room. Mr MacDiarmid submitted that this was not evidence. Mr de la Mare had got substantially what he sought from the witness, and defendant was not present.

The Magistrate allowed the evidence as hearsay, not as proof that the words were used, but to break down the hostility of Cochrane's evidence.

Proceeding, witness said Cochrane asked to have a word with him. He said he was in Grocott's shop the night before to get a certain article, and Grocott asked: "Who told you that" He said: "Thackrah told me. " Then Grocott said: "You know Thackrah," and following that said he knew him too to his sorrow, as he was bringing a case against him for plates he supplied him with. Cochrane added: "He says you area rogue, a scoundrel," and that Grocott had either said he would make witness a bankrupt within a fortnight, or that he would be bankrupt within a fortnight, and (hat the Kodak Company had stopped his credit. Cochrane said he told Grocott that witness' effects were on the hire system, on which Grocott turned to his assistant saying: "There is no chance of our getting our £ls now." Witness said if that was the way Grocjtt was talking about him he would sue him for libel. He explained his position to Cochrane, pointing out that though he was tied for money at the moment his business was increasing by leaps and bounds, and that he had outstanding accounts more than would mutt his liabilities. Cochrane said he had been scared, before hearing both stories.

Cross-examined: He told Cochrane, afterwards that he would try to make some arrangements for the whole of the arrears. Some time afterwards an agreement was made

to pay £1 week, and that was kept up till the whole amount was paid up. Cochrane said at a subsequent inter-

view, at which Mr de la Mare was present, that he did not "want to be dragged into it." and that he did not think it was fair that he should be dragged into a court case, because he only told witness as a friend what Grocott had said. Mr de la Mare said it was not a case of dragging him in, but he supposed he wanted to see justice donn to witness. Cochrane replied: "1 do, hut 1 don't want to tall out with Mr Grocott."

Cross-examined: Cochrme never said to witness that he had made a mistake.

Mrs Thackrah, wife of the defendant, said that while in the next room, during the interview between her husband and Cochrane, she heard Grocott's name mentioned, and afterwards, she believed in Cochrane's voice, the words "scoundrel" and "bankrupt." She also heard her husband saying distinctly in a raised voice: "If that is the way Grocott is talking about me, 1 will ra'se an action against him for slander."

Mr de la Mare hen gave evidence. He said on Ist July he was called to Thackrah's studio to hear what Cochrane had to say. He noted at the time that Cochrane was asked what Grocott had said, and replied that Grocott had stated that Thackrah was a rogue. Witness cross-ex-amined him on the word ' 'rogue." He said he could not absolutely swear that the word "rogue" was used, but that either "rogue" and "scoundrel" or some such word was used. He thought it was "rogue." Cochrane also said Grocott had told him he had no chance of getting his money, that the Kodak Company had stopped his credit, that Thackrah was on the verge of bankruptcy and that the money Cochrane had in the enterprise was in jeopardy. Cross-examined: He took this down because it had been suggested that there was ground for an action.

Why put it in your diary. Did you think Cochrane might be wobbly? - You are right. 1 think that after 1 saw Cochrane I was here at the court, and on.going back to the office I got a note from Mr Jackson saying that Cochrane had called and said he would have nothing to do with the business, as Grocott denied having used the words alleged. That ma le witness careful about the words Cochrane had used. Cochrane stampeded back to witness' office and was in a blue funk. Witness noted the words used, after hearing from Mr Jackson. His whole impression of Cochrane since was that he was in such a blue funk that he was r2ady to say anything. Cochrane told him two or three days ago that he had made a mistake, but witness did not believe it.

Mr Jackson corroborated. Cochrane told him when he called at the office that he "was not going to have anything to do with it," that he did not want to make himself hated all over the town, and that his line would then be that he had not properly understood Grocott. This closed the evidence for Thackrah.

H. Grocott, plaintiff, was then sworn and denied absolutely that he hud made the statements alleged. In the conversation between Cochrane and witness in the shop Thackrah's name was mentioned. He remembered distinctly that Cochrane told him his position with regard to Thackrah and he discussed with him the matter of the photographic plates. There was nothing during the whole conversation said by witness which he would be afra d to repeat to Thackrah at this moment. It was an ordinary general conversation without anything outstanding. They did not discuss Thackrah's financial position. He knew nothing about it. There was nothing in the conversation to cause Cochrane to get into a funk. Soon afterwards Cochrane came in a very confused condition, and said he had had some words with Thackrah. Witness could see he was very much upset about some statement he had made. He said that in the heat of an argument he had told Thackrah that witness had called Thackrah a rogue. Witness said: "Heavens, Cochrane, what have you been saying?" The latter said he felt that he had made a mistake, and that was why he had come in to tell witness. Witness said: "If you have been making any untrue statements about me, you'd better go straight back to Mr Thack-

rah and tell him you've made a misI take." Subsequently he returned, and led witness to believe that he , had perfectly satisfied Thackrah that he (Cochrane) had made a mistake. He said that in presence of both Thackrah and Mr de la Mare he hail submitted that he had made a mistake Cross-examined: How lon,* did you remain satisfied'.'—Right up till Mr MacDiarmid got hold of this. Didn't you tell me yourself that you thought this slander action was being used as a lever for getting rid of (he £ls debt?—No, I have no recollection of having said that. Continuing, witness said Mr de la Mare had suggested to him that for a man in his position it would not be a good thing to have the matter of the plates discussed. Witness said that was a matter of blackmail, and he woult 1 not listen to such a thing. Mr de la Mare: That is utterly false Witness: I stick to my words. Continuing, ho said there was no mention of slander in that conversation. Mr de la Mare asked leave to go into the box to contradict Mr Grocott's evidence. Being allowed to make a statement, not in evidence, he said the only suggestion he had made to Grocott was that a man in his position could afford to be generous to a man in Mr Thackrah's position. Beyond that Grocott's statement was absolutely false. The magistrate: So far as 1 am concerned, 1 do not for a moment consider that you said anything suggesting blackmail or anything improper. He may nave got a wrong impression. Mr de la Mare: Thunk you, Your Worship. 1 quite understand that Mr Grocott may have received a wrong impression. Mr MacDiarmid then addressf'd the Court, holding that if evidence such as Cochrane's was to be held as ground for slander, slander actions would grow up like mushrooms. Mr de la Mare followed, holding that the whole question at issue was one of the credibility of the witnesses. He suggested tflat Grocott, being desirous of getting rid of old stock, had said more in praising his goods than he admitted in the witness box. Judgment was reserved.

The case lasted till after 10 o'clock, in the presence of a large attendance of the public. HOW TO MAKE THE BEST COUCH SYRUP. A. SPLENDID HKCII'K I'Olt FAMILY USE Everybody knows that family cough medicine! contain water, sugar, etc., as well as medicinal ingredients. By getting the pure drug ingredients alone, and mixing lite balance ■t home, you obtain a pin! for I 6 instead of a irnall bottle that lasts almost no time. Mil sugar, treacle, vinegar, water, and one bollle of (lean's Esse nee, as per easy directions on label. Thi« gives a pint of the best family cough and cold remedy money can buy. It takes hold of a cough in a way that meins business from the fast dose, il is splendid for wre throats, croup, stufled bronchial in ssthma and bronchitis. Il can be given to men, women and children, as it does not contain an) harmful drug. Being so easy to make, pleasant to take, and costing so little- a whole pint for I 6- sna valuable in its curing properties, there is no wonder this recipe has become so quick y popular in New Zealand homes. Medicine dealers everywhere sell 1 lean's Essence, or can easily obtain far you. I'ost free on receipt o price —I 6~-(rom Hem's Pharmacy. Win