LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 758, 5 March 1910, Page 15

LAW REPORTS.

ALLEGED LIBEL. CLAIM FOR £2000 DAMAGES. , BEETLING AGAINST NORTON. Tlio action for .C2OCO damages for alleged libel brought by Albert Ernest Louis Bertling, superintendent at the Wellington Zoo, against John Norton, proprietor of the newspaper "New Zealand Truth," was mentioned in Chambers yesterday before the Chief Justice. • Mr. F. B. Sharp, who appeared on-be-half of Bertling, the plaintiff, moved for an order granting a special jury to hear the case. Counsel said that the case involved a good deal of expert evidence. Tho Chief Justice: What is the point you say depends upon expert evidence? As to* animals ? Mr. Sharp: Defendant has alleged in his paper that We are incompetent in regard to the feeding of the animals, and that the animals dieA of a disease, regarding which we also offer expert evidence, to the effect that the statement is incorrect. Then lie says'that our treatment of the animals is wrong. We wish to offer evidence that it is unlikely that his services will be retained. Mr. A. Dunn, for the defendant Norton, said that it was not customary to grant a special jury in such a case. The Chief Justice: That is not the point. The point is this: that you have justified. . Mr. Dunn: That is so. The Chief Justice: If you have justified, is not tlie question as to" this man's competency? Does not that involve expert evidence as to ■ whether ho is fit or not?- You cannot have a common jury to deal with the libel, and* a special jury to deal .with the expert part of the case. Can you say that there* is no question here of expert evidence? Mr. Dunn: Some evidence of on expert aaturo might bo given. . iThe Chief Justice: Is not the wholo gist of the defence that you say ho is not an expert? ... ; Mr. Dunn: We say he is not lit for tho" position. I do not persist strongly in my objection, _ however, your; Honour. The Chief Justice explained • that although this ' man called. himself a "zoologist," he was in the same position as a medical,man against whom there were allegations of unskilful treatment. All,, order would bo issued for the summoning of a special jury. .The.case was.subsequently set down for hearing on Wednesday, March 16. ■ . SOLICITORS ADMITTED.' Four admissions, were granted in Chamber's yesterday by the Chief Justice. Mr. David Stanley Smith, who is connected with the office of Findlay ami Dalziel, was,admitted as a barrister awlsolicitor, on the .motion of Mr. Samuel. On behalf of Mr. Andrew Paterson, Mr. C. H. Izard moved that ail order ot' admission as a solicitor should be granted,\ and tho applicant was admitted. Mr. Paterson; is a. member of, tho staff of Izard and'"Weston. ■Mr., Arthur James Luko was'admitted as a solicitor, tho motion being presented' by Mr. T. Young. Mr. Luke is, attached ti the firm of Young and Tripe. Mr. John Lawrence' Short, whoso application was supported by Mr. H. F. von Haast, was admitted' to practise as a' solicitor. He is of tho staff of Meelf and von Haast. ; . THE CIVIL LIST. The Chief Justice • went. through • the civil list, at a sitting in Chambers, andarranged for the.' hearing of cases in the following order : ; rMonday, March 7—Eliza Jane Anniss v. Frederick J. Rayner, claim for* .£250 damages. for .alleged bodily, injury; tlio South Pacific Mortgago and Deposit Coy., Ltd. TV/?Erancis",'London, and. Justinian John Kivernan Powell, claim l'or £IGG lGs. 10d., alleged to bo due on a promissory note. Tuesday, March B—George Alexander Gray and others v. Susan Mary Dawson •and others, claim. for partition of land, etc.; -Alfred Norman Jones v. tho Wel : lington Steam I'Yrry Coy;, Ltd., claim for .£IOO, and. interest, as damages for alleged breach of warranty. Wednesday, March 9—Thomas Morland v.. Frederick Hales and others, claim for specific performances, etc. Thursday, March 10 —Divorco petitions; John Eli Ellis, and Edith Dorothy Ellis v. tho Hutt County Council, originating summons (in . Banco). Friday, March 11—Wellington. City Corporation v. Italia Corich and the Government Insurance Commissioner, claim for possession, etc. Monday, March 14—Frank Maxwell Leckie and lreno Myra L'Estello Leckie v. Ernest' Rawson7 claim, for as damages .for alleged bodily injuries (before a special jury of 12); Hamilton Gilmer and Allen Maguire v. Joseph Dwyer, claim for .£IOOO damages, etc., for alleged | failure, to account; Magnus Sanderson and Coy., Ltd. v. Matterson and Fitzgerald, claim for .£248 os. lid. for goods supplied. ' Tuesday, March 15—Ellen. Lang Tucker Waddilove and William Wardrop Waddilove v. the Wellington Harbour Ferries, Ltd., claim for .£ISOO, as damages for loss of life through alleged negligence; Edward Joshua Piudiford v; Georgo Foreman, claim for .£2OO, as damages, etc., for alleged trespass. Wednesday, March 16—Albert Ernest Louis Bertling v. John Norton, claim for .£2OOO as damages for alleged libel (before a special jury of 12); William Sinclair v. Hugh Fraser and James' Alexander Fraser, claim, for X 132 as commission. ' ' - Thursday, HaTch 17—Seaford Coal Co., Ltd., and Ernest Gregory Pilcher v. John Shaw, a Nelson case removed to Wellington for argument. Monday, March 21—William Burgess and Johi Mitchell v. William Vickera, claim for .£2OO as damages for alleged breach of contract. Tuesday, ' March 22—Tho Wellington Harbour Ferries,'' Ltd. v. the Corporation of tho Royal Exchange Assuianco Co.,' claim for .£SOO, under an insurance policy.. e . — —.