CHARGE OF SLANDER.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1089, 30 March 1911, Page 6

CHARGE OF SLANDER.

INTERESTING CASE. ARE STATEMENTS TO THE POLICE PRIVILEGED? "YES," SAYS HIS HONOUR. (By Telegraph.—Special Correspondent.) Masterton, March 29. The Supreme Court sessions wore continued at Masterton to-day, tho Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) presiding. Arthur Coe, custodian of the Greytown Hospital, and Robert Simmonds, farmer, of Featherston, claimed from Frederick Siriiiuonds, farmer, of Featherston, a sum of £501 damages for alleged slander. Mr. C. A. Pownall appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr. C. W. Neilsen, of Wellington, for defendant. The statement of claim set out that, on or about October 13, 1910, Violet Simmonds, wife of defendant, wilfully, falsely and "maliciously wrote and published to Constables Baker and Larkin, of the Wairarapa, written statements, whereby she imputed and alleged false and defamatory matter concerning the plaintiffs, to wit, that on September 2S, 1910, at Featherston South, the plaintiff Coe had committed a felony by assaulting her wfth force and violence, he being assisted by the plaintiff Simmonds. When Mrs. Simmonds wrote and published these statements, it was while she was living, with her husband. Mr. C. A. Pownall outlined his case, and called Constable Baker, who said that Mrs. Simmonds had called upon him in connection with a police matter. Mr. Ostler, on behalf of tho Commissioner of Tolice, objected to any evidence, being given' by the police concerning information which had come into their possession. He quoted authorities with a view to showing that the State was not justified iu furnishing documents which might have been entrusted to officers of justice. These were privileged documents. Mr. rownall argued that a slander issued to the police was actionable, and that tho documents in tho case could not be regarded as Stato documents. His Honour held (on the authorities quoted) that tho State could not be compelled to produce tho documents in its possession. Mr. Pownall stated that he could not proceed, in view.of this decision. It seemed to him an atrocious thing, however, that a person could' write slandering statements to a police officer, and that these statements wpre protected. His Honour said it would be still more atrocious if a person were debarred from making statements to the police for fear of subsequent action for slander. Mr. 'Pownall said he had no other evidence to tender. His Honour thereupon non-suited the plaintiff with costs on the lowest scale. CLAIM INVOLVING £2765. Anders Obsen. farmer, of Eketahuna, claimed from' Thomas Gwynn Horsley Williams, of Canterbury, a sum of ,£2768 for specific performance of a contract to purchase plaintiff's property at Eketahuna. In the alternative, a claim of £2000 damages was made. Mr. E. Page (Eketahuna) appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. C. W. Nielsen for defendant. The material allegations in the claim were admitted by the defence, and Mr. Page moved for judgment on the pleadings. This was granted by his Honour, who made a decree for specific performance and the payment of the amount of the claim, viz'., £2708, CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. Frederick C. Fox, painter, of Masterton, claimed- from Frederick O'Connor, carrier, of Tcnui, the sum of £501 for damages caused by alleged negligence. Mr. C. A. rownall appeared for plaintiff and Mr. P. L. Hollings for defendant. The statement of claim set out that plaintiff, with two companions, was driving from Lower Taucru to Masterton on the evening of -November 3. 1910. At a spot about four miles from Masterton, they encountered a bale of wool in the centre of the road.- The horse shied anil upset the' trap over an embankment, as the result of which the plaintiff sustained a compound fracture of his left leg, in addition to general injuries and serious pain. arid inconvenience. The plaintiff was confined to his bed for six weeks, and was likely to suffer permanent I injury. The Wool, it was alleged, .was tho property of James Foreman,' of Tcnui, and O'Connor, while acting as carrier, wilfully,. negligently, • and carelessly omitted to-observe .that tho 'bale had dropped, and to take any steps to .prevent accident, until after the plaintiff was.injured. He therefore claimed damages to the extent of £501. The defence was a denial of all the allegations contained in the claim, and it was contended that the wool was the property of Foreman. .Defendant was not his servant, but was acting as an independent carrier. Without any negligence or carelessness tho. wool fell from the wagon. The plaintiff, it was alleged, was guilty of contributory negligence in carelessly and urfskilfully' driving along the road, in failing to use proper control over the horses, and to observe the-hale of wool and avoid tho same, and in driving without lights. • Evidence was. given by Frederick C. Fox, plaintiff, in support' of the allegations in ,the claim. Dr. Cowic gave evidence as to the nature of tho injuries sustained by. the plaintiff. Evidence was also given by J. J. Kelleher, W. B. Ingram, William Shepherd. Herbert Sparksman, Robert Buick, and William Igguhlen. Tho jury, after three hours' retirement; returned a verdict for defendant. THE ARSON CASE. Leo. Barker, found guilty of. arson, was this morning admitted by the Chief Justico to twelvo months' probation. PURCHASE OF LAND. A case was commenced in the Supreme Court this afternoon in which Michael M'Govern, of To. Wharau, claimed from one Hodd, of Takapau, £500 for specific performance regarding purchase of land. After plaintiff's' evidence had been given, his Honour-non-suited plaintiff with costs.