STAGPOOLE v. PIRANI AND GO.

Wanganui Chronicle, Issue 12856, 18 May 1912, Page 4

STAGPOOLE v. PIRANI AND GO.

CHANGE OF VENUE GRANT-ED

(Pei' Press Association.) WELLINGTON, May 17. By the decision of the Supreme Court to-day, change of venue from Paimerston North to Wellington was granted in the ease of Thomas Stagpoole v. Pirani and Co., Limited, and' Frederick Plrani. The application was heard by Mr. Justice Cooper and Mr Justice Chapman, the judgment of the Court being delivered by the latter. Mr A. W. Blair appeared for the defendants in support of tiho application, and Mr. Myers for the plaintiff, to oppose. The action was for alleged libel published in the "Feilding Star," owned and managed by defendants. Th© plaintiff was a schoolmaster under •tiheEducation Board. The alleged libel waa headed " A fraudulent return sent in %y Mr Stagpoole." "The defendant, Frede,rick Pirand," the judgment stated, "had taken a leading part in a lengthy (pro^ceeding involving an inquiry into plaintiff's conduct before the Teachers' Court of Appeal in which plaintiff appealed from a decision of the Wanganui Education Board. We tliink is iijndeiniable that the heairing. of tlhat appeal caused a great deal of feeling amd oonisiderable excitement in a district wide enough to include the town of PaJhnerston, where the inquiry was held. Mr Myers has argued that the alleged libel is a compairativeily simple matter efcaoid^ ing quite apa<rt from the questions anTs■ing upon the hearing of the appeal. 'To some extent this is true, but we are satisfied that the whole subject of tha Education Board's decision and Mr. vStagpoole's appeal, with which the matter complained of is not wholly unconnected, have entered into the public mind in the district, and that feeling has run high in connection with Mr. Sbagpoole and his grievance. It is not too much to say that a local aimoegphefro has been created which is 'highly charged with excitement. In the ciircumfitarieo"? disclosed by the affidavit, wo do not think we can to. the public that they will, or to the whole jury panel that it ~will thus carefully discriminate between the cause of the excitement and the subject rdf I&er action. All the matte.-s which, "have caused and kept up excitement a/rid fooling must be looked upon as to some extent cumulative.'.'.■.■:■

Befepriiig to the publication in tho ' Manawatu Daily Times" of certain affidavit:*, their Honours said—"lt .is difficult to sep. :why interlocutory proceedings .inj/such an action should interest th;! public unless there was already a state, or excitement in the district. It seenis id Us to aoceriiuate the. fact that oitemewt -exists, and that prejiidico probably existsi"-, In the commentary upon this the-airtiiicle goes on, to say;^ — " We recognise that tho ' Feilding Star ' has endeavoured to foster antagonism between tho ~ ttCo towns.; We do not think that such an impression lhasa-ny tendency to villay the nrejudico which Mr Pimm states on oath exists in. Palmerston against him. »The matter does aiot stop there, as in the issue of May; Ist appears a letter headed ' Bough on.Paltnenstoii'aud its Jury list,' and signed ,'L am,' etc.,-oh the jury list.' This letter censures three business .men in; Palmerston, who had so low ran opinion- of ■ the people of their town that they did not consider them capable ,of sitting on a, jury that would give ia, man a fair trial. As the letter is published anonymously, it may be regairded as adopted ©ddtor.ialljr. There can be no doubt that such nuafbtGrs as appear in the affidavits would be looked upon by many people, ■and possibly by many jurors, as offensive. They were not published by. oa- with the consent of the defendants, and they would have remained on tho file of this Court unknown to the jurors. JJad they not been published in this way, we canmat but think that tbeiir publication might prove prejudicial to the defendants of the action, and we come to the conclusion that it is. undesirable in the interests of justice, and dt would mot be fair that this case should be tried in PaJmerston. This may be iinfortunato for tho plaintiff, who is not to blame, but it is not in the interests of justice that a trial should take place where such conditions exist." An order was made fon- the trial at Wellington, with costs £5 55., costs' in tho action.