DEFAMATION OP CHARACTER.

Wellington Independent, Volume XXI, Issue 2376, 16 June 1866, Page 5

DEFAMATION OP CHARACTER.

STELLING, BARKER v. LEYDON. In the Supreme Court on Thursday, Mr. Stelling Barker brought an action against Mr. Leydon for defamation of character. The case wag hoard before his Honor Mr. Justice Johnston and a Jury. Mr. R. Harfc, with him, Mr. Buckley conducted the case for the plaintiff; and Mr. Borlase appeared for the defendant, who was absent throughout the day. It appeared from the ovidenco that the actionhadbcon brought to recovor damages for a lotterwrittentotheProvincial Secretary by the defendant, in which the plaintiff was accused of accepting £5 before he would pass certain work. Tho plaintiff, Mr. Stelling Barker, is a District Surveyor, appointed by the Superintendent ; and [ tlie defendant, Mr. Lejdon, is a contractor. It was the duty of the plaintiff, as such district surveyor or engineer, to overlook, examine, roport upon, and, if the work wore proporly one, to pass the work of the defendant. Some months back the defendant undertook a contract to perform a certain work on a portion of the road in the Mungaroa'Distriet, which road or work, when completed, it was tho duty of tho "plaintiff to examine. In the course of that examination, it was discovered that some of that work was not fully and completely done ; but, on going over it with members of tlie Board of the Mungaroa District, it was ascertained that tho amount that would be required to make it good was so Blight — a day and-a-half's work only, or something like it — that it would not be worth Mr. Barker's timo to go from Wellington a second time to examine tliat work for tho purpose of passing it, because the amouutiOf work that was to be dono would not be equal to the cost and value of his own time in going to pass it. Upon tho promise of the defendant that the work would bo completed, it was agreed between all the parties interested — Mr. S. Barker and tho members of the BoaTd — that the -work in genoral should stand as .passed, and that it should not at that time be necessary further to examine it. Tho learned counsel for tho plaintiff having opened the case called tho Provincial Secretary, who deposed to the receipt of a letter from tho defendant containing certain charges against tho plaintiff, who was immediately suspended until he could clear himself of tlie imputation of having accepted a Vribe. Mr. Barker himself was then put in the box, and most distinctly and emphatically denied ever having asked for, or received any money whatsoever for passing work. Ho said that upon one occasion the defendant had offered him a little parcel which he had divined to have contained money, and thathehad thro wnitaway with indignation. In support of this statement three witnesses, an uncle and nephew named Hooper, and Constable Harris wore placed in the box, and deposed to having found a roll of notes in a bush bordering on the Wade's Town Road ; and several members of Road Boards swore that Mr. Leydon's work was imperfectly finished. Tins concluded tho case for the plaintiff. Mr. Borlase for the defence, called no witnesses, and merely relied on a verdict for the defendant because, as he said, tho letter to the Provincial Secretary relative to Mr. Barker was not libellous, but simply looking at the condition of the writer and receiver, (the one an employee and tho other .an omployor), a privileged communication between master and servant. Mr. Hart, in addressing tho jui % y, expressed his willingness to accept a verdict only, as the action was not bi'ought so much to obtain damages as to clear an honorable man's character. His Honor theJudgethenrecapitulatedthcovidence, explained the law of libel, commented strongly on tlie absence of the defendant, and left the case in the hands of the jury, who retired and after an absence of about half an hour returned a verdict for tho plaintiff, with £10 damages.