SUPREME COURT.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1266, 17 June 1886, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

Tijiaru —Wednesday June 15.

Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston, and the following jut/ : —J. Knight (foreman). J. W, Velvin, Sunidge, and Bennett. TONER V HERRING. This was an action in which the plaintiff sought to recover damages from the defendant (1) £2OO for trespass and assault, aad (2) £3OO for a libel published by defendant in the “ Press” newspaper, in a letter in which defendant alleged that plaintiff had been rightly convicted of larceny in the Resident Magistrate’s Court at Ashburton, and further that he had on other occasions stolen timber the property of defendant. The libel also attacked plaint : ff in his character as a farmer, and generally impugned his character for honesty. Mr Wilding, with him Mr Rhodes, for the plaintiff. Mr G. Harper for the defendant. The evidence was similar in all material respects to that taken in the Ashburton Resident Magistrate’s Court during the hearing of the charge of larceny against Toner, the present plaintiff. It was agreed between counsel that, if the jury found for the plaintiff, a verdict

might be given for a lump anm in respect of both causes of action, without finding on each issue. Mr Harper addressed the jury for the defence, and Mr Wilding replied. His Honor in summing up said, with regard to the arrest, that it was illegal. The constable had no right to take sucn a a'ep, but a person with greater knowledge of law than the constable possessed might hare acted in a similar manner. His Honor had no doubt that the con stable acied to the best of h's judgment. But there was no evidence to connect the I defendant with the arrest. It was admitted that the defendant committed a trespass when he accompanied the oonI stable to search the plaintiff’s promises [ His Honor alluded shortly to the previous grevlanca between the parties, and directed the jury that, if they found the allegations in the letter had not been justified by the defendant, they were to give a verdict for the plaintiff’. The questionof the amount of damage was e atirJly for them to decide. They should give »uoh an amount as would vindicate plain"'flTs character if it had been unjustly assailed:

The Jury re ired, and, after half an hours deliberation, returned Into court with a verdict for plaintiff -damages £l5O- - Honor gave casts on the lowest scale.