SUPREME COURT, CHRISTCHURCH.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume 4, Issue 416, 16 July 1880, Page 2

SUPREME COURT, CHRISTCHURCH.

The Nisi Prim sittings of the Supreme,; Court opened'on Monday -lK'st-at 11 o'clock.: The only case tried was that of Bracken v Price, alias Darr«ll,in which.ithe plaintiff; claimed £1000 damages on account of a j libel alleged to have been published att Wellington. ' , The plaintiff is the; editor.and part pro-} prietor of the Saturday Advertiser,, the defendant [is the-well-known actor-j author,:iMr GeorgiaTDarreli. •'.'•• -- 1 ; . Mr L-nighnan Appeared for the plaintiff,; and Mr defendant. , :h >j:.|. j Several witnesses were;called, and' their; evidence all tended to prove Darrell to bej the real author of the alleged* libel, which' was published in a sort of a circular, assuming i the,- iappvarauce: of a playbill; and I distributed at the theatre in Wellington, j

W. H.'Pilliet, 1 Esq.,' 1 journalist, stated that he had seen several ( copies of the circulai, and- had received on» specially Bent to biin in an envelope addressed in handwriting-be could swear;to He,Dar/ell's. He stated'that it was blank on the back, except what Vn's in substance a* follows : —'' If you continue to criticise my acting unfavorably I shall on my return to Melbourne .publish similar .attacks j in another card." The word " card" means, in America, a circular. At that time he was theatrical critic of the &im.\ .' He|Had censidered it a großa insult to him, apd ,had thrown it in the fire. Mr William Henry Smith, managing printer of the Press, stated that he had been in the habit of doing Darrell's theatrical printing; that he bad been asked to print onthe back of the programmes intended by Mr Darrel for use at 'the theatre a circular, the, proof of which was a facsimile of the dbcumont in question, and that he had found it both/ scurrilous and libellous, and even after it had been greatly modified, he" (Mr Smith) had refused to'have anything to do with'it.

Mr Thomas Bracken, editor and part proprietor of the,; Saturday., Advertiser and Now Zealand Public Opinion, stated that; be had the charge and entire, c.on,trpl,of | the'litorary department of; the paper. He; had' known ! Mr 'DhrrefF for 'eight> or nine; years—not since : the " inception "Of hfs theatrical career. He had criticised his performances,- always; fairly, •in his own judgment He criticised, his acting and his works, and received at the door of his; theatre the dociunentjprodueed (a message \ refusing'the usual Press admission'W.the: theatre). ' He had nnade fn'ri of it; 'He had ■ shortly afterwaAls athWrfed • DarreH's farewell bene£t,uas :hel had-beeh, informed Darrell intended to '' slate" him,; and-on that occasion .Darrell made the; same, .statement, a«;.contained >m» the libel.) Darrell liad accusftd him of "black-mail-j ing," but without the leapt foundation for the charge: !n th'fit : sp^ech i Mr Darrell complimented the "free, honest, and independent Presa of New/Ze«laMl,Jwith tfte] exception,Qf;two-Advertising sheets (the! Saturday, Advertiser and New Zealand,-Sun), \ and more than hinted that the newspapers; named had criticise! his works and per-; forma'nees unfairly' because he\Ka 1 d refused I to bo rt blacK-mailed. by their piopne-j tors. ■'<•'■>' '-■ ''- > f - <• - '"* i■* ! Mr Garriok put, put in some evidence' which had been taken on commission in • Melbourne, the other side consenting, The; 'evidence was'that 6'f George Darrell, the. defendant, and' was'to the following; effect:—He (Mr Dariell) had read the alleged libel. He i h«;d ; not / prjutejd the libel.. ,He did Apt know.the,name orj i denca of the printer of tho libel,, < He did, not publish the libel or authorise iVo'publi- : cationV - -Tie did inbfc, give orders for its' being printed. As soon as he beared of its publication ho immediately stopped it. i Finally he had had nothing to do with its ; plib!ic'ii»ion. .7 -;-'' ■"■''■< ' /'■'/, ': j Thin was the/ only I evidence for the defence. . ' ~ : ' -, jjis Honor summed up, recommending: the jury,'if they found for the .plaintiff, I: riiuf. substantial, but not vindictive, damans.'. ..'...','..!;.-.'. ' T'ivv jurr retired, arid after a brief ab- ,.: .'-i..-,.; with a verdict'for the'plain- >.:- . •;.-]-■. v:;.-u7 , ii.s~damages £50.

On Wednesday, his Honor Mr Justice Johnston and a special jury were occupied all day with the case Saunders v. Delamain, an action for the payment of £700, the amount of an accommodation bill accepted by the defendant for tho late Mr '■"YVilliain Neilson, and endorsed by the lastnamed gentleman to the plaintiff. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff on all the issues.