THE TIN WALD LIBEL CASE.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1247, 7 May 1884, Page 2

THE TIN WALD LIBEL CASE.

Iq the case -of Scott v. Gudsell hea d yesterday before Mr Justice Johnston, Mr Wilding, with him Mr Caygill, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Joynt for the defendant. This was an action to recover L 260 damages for libel published in the Ashburton Guardian in a letter describing a “disgraceful a flair 1 ' at the Tinwald Hotel, in January last. The defendant was the writer of the letter, and the plaintiff was the owner of the Tinwald Hotel. Mr Wilding opened for the plaintiff, and called the following evidence;— William Hall Zouch, accountant of the Ashburton Guardian, deposed that the paper circulated in Canterbury. The writer af the letter in the Guardian of January 22 (produced) signed “ Spectator ” was the defendant James Gudseil. Defendant called a day or two latter, and wished to know how Mr Scott had learned the name of the writer, and witness said he had told Scott, and in answer to the defendant said the letter, if true, was a fair comment on the conduct of the house, and in that case was rot libellous. Advised defendant to apologue if the letter was not true. Defendant replied that it was perfectly correct, and he should not apologise. Sergeant Henry William Felton, said that there was only one hotel at Tinwald, and that was kept by the plaintiff, Mark

'cott. No constable was stationed at Tinwald. Witness understood the lette • to allege that drunken men had been served with drink while drunk by Mark Scott, who is a licensed publican The Tinwald Hotel is under police surveillance, and is one of the best as to management, accommodation, and supply that witness had to examine. There had been a disturbance on the evening mentioned, and it was reported to witness by a constable, who had been told by Mr Scott the sarnie evening. Cross-examined : Tne only complaint against plaintiff, miade previously, was on the first Sunday after he had opened the hotel. Constable David Smart gave evidence of having visiied the hotel or. Jan. J 9, plaintiff having reported the disturbance as having taken place. The hotel, as far as witness knew, vvas well conducted. Plaintiff reported that there had been a general scrimmage, and wished the case brought before the Court. James Leslie, farm liborer at Winslow: In November last, at Chatmoss, defendant said it was no use complaining to the police of Scott, because Sergeant Felton had an interest in the house.

Cross-examined ; Never heard of a fight for L2 a side taking place at Scott’s. This was the case for plaintiff. Mr Joynt submitted that the should be u msuitoJ. The subject was one that concerned the public generally, and such a matter was privileged, unless exp-ess malice could be proved. The po ition of Mr Scott was a public one, and of general interest to the community, special y to those who travelled. Even if the statement were untrue, if made with* out malice, it was privileged.. He cited authorities in support of his contention. Mr Wilding having replied, his Honor refused the nonsuit, but reserved leave to Mr Joynt to move. Mr Joynt then called James Gudsell, the defendant: Was a storekeeper at Tinwald, residing opposite the Tinwald Hotel. Had beenjon the most friendly terras with Me Scott. On Jan. 19 a disturbance took place in the street opposite to, and in, the hotel. That disturbance was alluded to in the letter published in the Guardian on Jan. 22. About 5 p.m. some people ! f run Ashburton Mr and Mrs Lockhart, Mr and Mrs Sloan, Sam Hume, Wtn. Lockhart, juri., Aliok Davidson, Mr Hugh and Miss Rainey, with Jamas Dunpy—were about the hotel for some time Some were drunk, and sotpa not quite drunk. Young Lockhart was drunk, and the others showed signs of drink. They were quarelling and fighting. They were going in and out of the hotel. They srero making a disturbance, the ' woiqen screaming. They o mid b§ heard at some distance. Some of the

men had their coats off, and were striking one another. They were half an hour there before witness heard any noise. Those who were not quite drank when they came had now become quite drunk, so as to appear not to know, what they ■ were doing. It was about tWq hodnt-be-fore they went away. Mr SoOtt-Wak oatside walking about the footpath. He beckoned, as witness thought, to him, bat Mr Scott said it was to Mr Standiah. He said he would like to send forthe police. Witness offered to go, but Sbott said/ “ Oh, never mind.” Three of.the women were doing their best to atop the fighting. There had been previous disturbances—two that witness coaid remember. One was on the Saturday before Christmas, end the other some time before. On the - former oceaaiqntwo drunken men were fighting on the ro»d witness had seen them previously in tho Cross-examined: .. Their name««rsro Gibson and Lindsay. Did not remember the conversation with Leslie. Rountree was not drank. The witness gave various > details of the disturbance. J oseph Smith, Samuel Rountree,. Robt. Kennihgton, and Francis Lowe gave evidence corroborative of that of the defendant. * ’' This was the case for the defence. Me Wilding proposed to eall rebatting evidence, and after argument, this was permitted. ' • Mark Scott, the plaintiff, said that the only drinks supplied ,to the men of the party were two small whiskeys and three, ginger wines. None of the fighting men were supplied by witness with a drink after they began to quarrel. . Refused i them fifty times. i Christina Scott, wife of plaintiff : Had. . been prevented by v ®r husband from sop- . plying the party wi h dri <!c. , Thomas Rountree, William Lockhart, [ Frank Standiah, James Begg, and William Lindsay also gave rebutting ovi- [ dence. Counsel having addressed the Court, ' , ( His Honor held that if the occasion- of . privilege had arisen sufficient malice b*d not been proved; He held that the do- ’ £end»nt believed that drink bad been served to a drunken man. Wither that was sufficient justification he would'not at once decide. In considering the amount 1 of damage be felt : justified..in looking at ’ the amount of malice, and could hot con--1 aider th »t there hadbeeaaayabsenoo of 1 bona fides. ’■ Here was' no 9 animus against the' plaintiff. ' He wonUfl give a contingent verdict for the > of L 25, subject to the consideration I point of privilege, and of ths * of the justification, depending as it P the proof of only one act.- ■