SUPREME COURT.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XIV, Issue 2894, 9 February 1893, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

PRIMMER v. STEWART, AN ASHDUUTON 'USE. Timahu, February 8: In this case, which arose out of one heard before the Resident Magistrate at a recent sitting at Ashburton, G. 0. Primmer, farmer, Westerfield, sued Peter Stewart, contractor, for £725 damages ,' for slander, libel, and malicious prosecu- ! tion. Mr Stringer (instructed by Mr ! Wilding) for plaintiff; Mi- Raymond (inj structed by Mr Cathbertson) for defendant, * The case started at ten o'clock in the morning, and lasted till eight in the evening when the jury gi*ve a verdict for Primmer, finding that he had authority to sell, and awarded damages to the amount of £30, with costs on the lower scale, costs as for a jury of four, disbursements, and witnesses' expenses. #The case may be shortly recapitulated thus—the plaintiff in 1890 borrowed £i 40 1 from defendant on lien over growing grassHeed and oats. The plaintiff made a bad harvest of the grass seed through a nor'wester, ke alleged, and the oats were cut up for chaff. He sold both, and accounted to defendtht for some of the proceeds, leaving a balance of £70 owing. The defendant pressed for payment, could not get it, and threatened prosecution. Plaintiff sold hia farm, and defendant waited to obtain payment from the surplus over mortgage 5!, but only got £26 in December, 1891. !ri September last defendant laid a criminal information under the Chattel Transfer >ct charging plaintiff with fraudulently disposing of the crops liened to him. The case was heard by Captain Wrayand dismissed. The present suit is the consequence of this. The plaintiff's main contention was that defendant gave him authority to sell the crops, and accepted the proceeds as they were handed to him. Plaintiff brought seveial witnesses who heard defendant admit having given authority. Defendant denied it and brought other witnesses to prove hia denial at the suue time and place. The evidence given in the case was very contradictory, and some of the statements nwle by witnesses f>>r the defence were, to use a slang expression, "swift," as for instance that by AFi Thohias, .quoting a-, remark of his to Stewart iv r<;ply to Stewart saying he would arre3t Primmer, " For God's sake let him alone ai.d get him to sign this transfer. He has robbed mo of over £100 ; you needn't growl." 14or was Mr Alfred Curtis in any way mealy-mouthed in speaking of plaintiff. He said he^ had known Primmer ten year! and thafcprior to September last Primmer's reputation for honesty in the district was very poor indeed. : Mr Wilding, on the other band,, said that for business purposes, before makirg a large advmcts on mortgage to him, he made n«any enquiries about Primmer, with perfectly satisfactory results. His reputation for honesty was good. It was usual to make such inquiries. On the Unlit lands of Ashburton a farriiers character was all .important, as a reckless man could crop the land out in a few years. But he looked upon Primmer as a fool as a farmer —he had not sufficient: capital and did not know his business. Witness believed there was nothing in a report that Primmer had been threatened with a prosecution by Mr Stead on account of another lien fraud. The whole case hinged on whether or not plaintiff had obtained permission to ssll the crops, and although the evidence for both sides en this, point was very positive, the jury accepted plaintiff's story by 11 to 1, and this verdict haviiig been accepted by counsel, judgment was given as above.