MASTERTON DISTRICT COURT.

Woodville Examiner, Volume VII, Issue 641, 17 December 1890, Page 2

MASTERTON DISTRICT COURT.

SEDCOLE V. REESE. The following evidence was given in addition to that published in last issue : Charles Cooper, constable, said he objected to Thomas Hughes’ application on account of his intemperate habits and on account of the condition of the house, which, with its surroundings, was in a state of filth and dilapidation. Witness did not consider Hughes fit to hold a license from his intemperate habits. He had read Mr Reese’s letter in the Pahiatua Star, the comment upon which was decidedly uncomplimentary to Mr Sedcole He understood the public feeling pretty well in Pahiatua, but he rid not know that the publicans were raking up this action. W. W. McCardle believed the letter affected Mr Sedcole in the late Town Board election, because a number seemed to think it was true. The letter also affected Mr Sedcole's reputation. Alexander Black, produced the original letter sent him by Mr Reese, which was published on August 11th. When Mr Reese brought him the letter he called atattention to a certain portion of it, which he considered was unsafe to publish. As Mr Reese had a different opinion to himself he allowed the letter to appear. John Gregory, remembered seeing Mr Reese’s letter in the Pahiatua Star, and was surprised to see it, He heard from the outside public that the letter had damaged Mr Redcole, and personally ho thought it affected him in the Town Board election. To the Court: As he saw no contradiction to the letter in the paper ho was almost bound to believe it was true. William Stewart, had seen the letter in the Star, and he had hoard his customers say that unless Sedcole contradicted it, it would injure him a a public man. Mr Pownall submitted that the plaintiff should be non-suited in this case The action had been brought on account of what the plaintiff took to be an inuendo, and as no special damage had been shown the whole case must fail. There was not the slightest evidence to show that the plaintiff bad lost the election in consequence of the letter. Mr Tosswill contended that there was a case for the jury. It had bean shown in evidence that through the appearing of the letter in public print the Town Board election had been influenced. For the defence, Mr Pownall held that this was a trashy action, trumped up to injure a party. Sedcole had acted in a most disgraceful manner, and anything that might have been written about him was justified. For the defence A. Reese said: A public meeting was held in the Town Hall, and every candidate nominated was pledged to support the granting of new licenses. Mr Naylor gave them to understand that he had been offered a big cheque by Mr Spillane if he voted against Hughes’ license. He had refused to accept it, however. At the meeting in the Town Hall, Albert Sedcole said he had also been offered a cheque for £SO from Mr Spillane. He gave them to understand that he hadjrefused it. He did not remember Mr Black objecting to the letter when he took it to him. When ho wrote the letter he had the fact of Sedcole being offered the money in his mind, but he carefully avoided making direct reference to it. The plaintiff had suffered no damage by reason of the letter. He wished only to show that the plaintiff had been influenced by promises. In his opinion Mr Sedcole was rejected in the Town Board election because he did not carry out his pledge. By Mr Tosswill: The statements of Constable Cooper were untrue. He had gone through the building and it was not filthy. Mr Hughes stated that ho was “ hocussed ” by one of the publicans and made drunk. Henry Sedcole, deposed that a pledge had been made by Mr A- W. Sedcole to vote for the granting of the license to Hughes. Ho had fought against his brother in the Town Board election owing to his actions. The letter had nothing to do with the result of the election, Edward Naylor stated that he was present at Sedcole’s house, and it was then said that Hughes was not a suitable man to be licensed. At the Town Hall meeting he did not hear Mr Sedcole make any pledge. To Mr Pownall: Hughes might have got his license if his house had been fit, but he was hanging over a fence drunk when his application was heard. On the Court resuming on Saturday nfternono, Henry Wilson, who is a member of the Pahiatua Licensing Committee, ) gave evidence as to the pledge made by Sedcole to vote for the granting of licenses to Hughes and Christiansen. William Eager corroborated the evi. dence with regard to a pledge, and stated further that Sedcole admitted being offered a bribe, and wanted to divide with him. A. W. Hogg stated that the words in Mr Reese’s letter, “ consideration, the amount of which,” were vague, and might have referred to anything. They might have meant an amount of friendship, or support in a Town Board election, Had the letter been submitted to him he would have had no hesitation in publishing it. Any man with a stainless character would have taken no notice of it. This was one of the flimsiest actions for libel he had ever heard, and he had heard a few. Mr Tosswill: I must object to this, your Honor. His Honor: I cannot direct the jury to fake 'Mr Hogg’s opinion npon the nature of the case. Mr Tosswill: I believe, Mr Hogg, thqtt Mr Reese was one of your chief in the late election ? Mr Hogg: Not to my knowledge. Nqt to your knowledge ? Do you not know that he worked tooth and nail for you? I do not. He did not support you at all ? Not to my own knowledge! lam given to understand he assisted my candidature. Oh I the jury will know then how much reliance to put upon the statement of this witness. His Honor, in directing the jury, pointed out what really constituted a libel, and referred to the evidence adduced. The following issues were submitted to the jury, with the result as shown :- - 1. Was the publication libellous ?—No. 2. 'tyas defendant justified by the facts in publishing the letter ?--Yes, 3. To what amount of general damages is the plaintiff entitled ?—None. 4. Did the plaintiff lose the Town Board election in consequence of the alleged libel, and if so, to what amount of special damages is he entitled ? No, and none. His Honor then entered up judgment in accordance with the findings, with costa £26.