WAKANUI LIBEL CASE.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1246, 6 May 1884, Page 2

WAKANUI LIBEL CASE.

The following account of tbs libel esse of Brown v. Kilgour, tried before Mr Justice Johnston at Christchurch yestorr day, is condensed from the J/jjttelton Times report;— Mr Purnell appeared for the plaintiff ; Mr Wilding, with him Mr Oaygill, ap. peared for the defendant. —On the .ap* plication of the plaintiff all witnesses were ordered out of Court. This was an action to recover L 250 damages for libel published in the Ashburton Mail on November 8, in a report of a meeting of the WAkanui School Committee, the said report having been furnished to the paper at the request of the Committee by the defendant, who was Chairman of the Com-

mittee.—The defence wu to the effect that the report was a correct one, and had been published in good faith. The expression complained of charged the plaintiff with acting as a spy upon the teachers of the school.

After considerable legal argument on points rased by Mr Purnell, his Honor decided that the case should gooi, and the following evidence was called for the plaintiff:— James Brown, the plaintiff: Was a farmer raiding at Wakanui since the year 1872, Had been a member of the School Committee, and Chairman fo~ the first two years, *s also for the year 1882. Was a member of the Committee till about the end of 1883, when he resigned. Had five children attending the school. On November 8, 1883, the Ashburton Mail, a paper circulated In the district, published a report containing the word “ maacer. ” Understood the word to apply to the master then holding office. Had done nothing in connection with the master for some years. Had written two letters to the Committee about the way in which the school was managed by the master then in office. The first complaint was made on >ept. 18. (Letter put in. It complained of the irregular hours kept by the master and mistress, and of the harsh and unjust treatment his boys had been subjected to). Was a member of the Committee at that time- The other complaint was made on Oct. 27. (Letter put in. It complained of, the loose manner in which the school was conducted.) Had ceased to be a member of the Committee, having resigned. The defendant, the Chairman of the Committee, replied by sending witness a letter, enclosing the resolution of the Committee complained of. (The letter was read. It contained in the resolution the words, “The Committee consider it very undignified on your part to be constantly playing the spy on the master. ” These were the words on which the action was grounded.) Witness’solicitor wrote asking for an apology. (Letter read, as also the terms required to be used in the apology.) Witness tried to get the motion rescinded, by moving at the householders’ meeting, “ That the resolution be expunged from the minutes.” Four voted for the resolution, and eleven against it. Defendant had made no apology, nor had be tatracted the charge. Witness was Chairman of the Library, and had been so for some time.

Cross-examined: Had been damaged in the eyes of hia neighbors, and (to a certain extent pecuniarily, because the meeting of the householders had voted against his resolution. Mr Branson waa -the first master. Had no doubt that he (witness) bad mate complaints of him in the performance of his duty as a member of the Comra'ttee. Had no disputes with the next master, Mr Culverhouse. Had complained of Mr Gillie. The complaints were not inquire! into. Had no disputes with Mr McLachlan. Mads only one complaint against Mr Thomas. The Committee did not approve of that letter. On Sept. 18, Mr Cookson was muter. Before sen hng the letter, saw defendant, and west with him to the school. Mr Cookson was there at the porch door, and witness’s two boys were called up. Other

children were playing about the ground. Was not excited, and used no violent language. Had no recollection of saying he would lay a criminal information against Mr Cookson. Denied he had used any such expression. Was certain he had 'not said • “ If I had a trap I would have taken the boy into Ashburton and laid an infor.nation against Mr Cookson. ” Might have said so to the Chairman on another occasion. Did not demand that all the canes should be taken away from thu school. The Chairman aak id the teacher to produce the stick at the meeting oL the Committee to be held that night. His boy’s hands were examined by Mr Kilgour. The marks were visible to this day. Never watched the school. Was very often about the school because the Post-office was there, and he went for his papers and letters three times a week. Had sometimes noticed at what time the children went in or cams out of school. Never went there for the purpose. On Sept. 7 went to the library to change a book. Took his watch out to see the time, and noticed that at 930 a.m the school waa not open. On Sept. 17 the children came home with their hands bruised. Witness had never looked at the school through a hole in the blacksmith’s shop. Had never aai! that be had' been watching the school. Wrote a letter to the Mail with reference to this matter. The letter waa published. (Letter read. It was of considerable length, and referred specially to the disrespectful behaviour of his boys, who laughed during prayer time, as they were not quite orthodox according to Wakanui ortho-

doxy ; it also tspoke in very disparaging terms of the Cr.mmitiqg-and the Chair-man.)-Witness, did n o t withdravy the charges contained in thw letter of Sept--18 Said he was willing to do so if the Committee wished it. They expressed

no opinion and kept his letter, so he concluded the. sh>rge3%ivete^JVot—withdrawn. —Re-examined : There had been ten masters at the school. Had, as a house-

holder, made complaints against four, and as a Committee-man againsc two. One of hia boys had been badly beaten and could not untie his shoes at night. The stick used was an improper one Mr Wilding having opened his defence called Arthur Cookson, certificated teacher and present master of the Wakanui school. Went there at the beginning of July, 1883. Knew Mr Brown. Was on friendly terms with him when first at the school, but after being there same weeks had some disagreement. In September Mr Brown complained about the punishment of one of hi? children. Saw Mr Kilgour and Mr Brown one morning in September, Mr Brown was rUher excited, and seemed to think witness had done very wrong in punishing hia children. Had read the libel complained of, with regard to Mr Brown acting as a spy. Had noticed that Mr Brown was a great deal about the school. Did not take much notice of the till after his complaints to the Committee, but he used to come up very frequently for letters shortly before 9£o am,, the time for opening the school. Had seen Mr Brown about there on days other than mail days. He bad land cropped opposite the school Had seen him near the school very often. Remembered Mr Brown’s letter being considered on September 18 by the Committee. Certain charges of irregularity of hours were made by Mr Brown and dropped by him. Cross-examined : Mr B-awn changed a book at the library on the morning he complained of the school not being opened in time. The mail came in about 830 a.m.

Further witnesses were examined to prove justification, and at the conclusion of the evidence his Honor gave judgment for the plaintiff, one farthing ’damage?. No order was nlade as to costs.