LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1140, 30 May 1911, Page 2

LAW REPORTS.

■ *-* — SUPREME COURT. THE LETTER OF AN ITALIAN, COMPATRIOT CLAIMS £500. His Honour the Chief Justice and a jury ot lour heard au action brougnt by Uini Angelini against Carlo Autico, iu winch plainntf dunned JISUO lor alleged libel. In his statement of claim plaintiff Angelini set lortli that ho hail suffered ciiimr.ge from Antico falsely aud maliciously writing and publishing m a loiter addressed to one Antonio Uini. The lettor was dated .March lli, I'JIO, and was written iu Italian. The words in Italian were hero given, the translation beiiig as follows:— "Now I will tell you what your brother (meaning Uini Angelini) awl your cousin Domcnico have done to. Nic (moaning Carlo Antico). At the tiuio i was in Pizzoli both the cousins iorceil your deceased aunt to make a will in their favour. They ill-treated her io that they made her faint. 1 have now been told all by persons who went to visit thorn one day, and found her in a, faint (meaning thereby that the defendant's wife was in a fainting condition caused by tho ill-treat-ment of Gini Angelini aud the said Domenico to force her to make a will in their favour). Then others have told me that she often said that she wished that I was returned to Wellington because she could no longer bear the torments which Domemco and Gini gave her. One day my poor wife staggered, fell, and then Gini said: 'Make first your will and then break your neck.'" Plaintiff (Angelini) therefore' claimed ,£SOO damages. In his statement of defence defendant Antico stated that 'the words did not mean what was alleged, anil were not defamatory. Privilege was claimed and, on just and reasonable grounds, he believed that his words were true and wero ptiblished without malice. Giui Angelini had executed in favour of his (Antico's) wife a second mortgage over his property for ,£7OO. This, though purporting to be a mortgage for valuable consideration was held by defendant's wife wholly in trust, for plaintiff. On her death she left the mortgage to Antonio Angelini, plaintiff's brother, in Italy, and appointed Guilia Gallo, defendant's niece, as executrix of her will. Subsequent to probate being granted to executrix, and, as a result of dill'erences and disputes, plaintiff required her to release tho mortgage. She required tho legatee to consent, and, at her and her husband's request, defendant Antico, their uncle, who lives with them, and whom they consult (regarding most of their business, wrote the letter in question. Gini Angelini . then (in his niece's and Antonio Angelinas interest) had to inform the latter of the reason for his consent being! formally required, and of the relations existing between the parties and Guilia, and her husband.

The words were written in pursuance to moral and legal duty. It was also said that the words were tiuo in substance and fact. While defendant Antico was in Italy, plaintiff and Dominico induced nis (Aah'co's) wife (by constant worry and pressure) to make a will in their favour. As a result of such worry, Antico's wife's health suffered, and, on one occasion, she was found in a semiunconscious st.ite. She complained, and the letter was written. For -plaintiff Gini Angelini.tho following witnesses were examined:—Dr. E. Borghetti, Luigi Gariglio,. Henry A. Moschini, and Gini Angelini. Mr. Fair asked his' Honour to withdraw > tho case from the jury, on the ground that there had been no publication proved. The letter had simply beer, dictated by defendant. That itself did not constitute publication.. His Honour said that, in this case, the letter was dictated by Antico. _ There was no endenco of any publication, or of any person having seen, the ietter except Gallo. Under the circumstances he must nonsuit plaintiff.

BREWERY, CONCERN. APPLICATION TO WIND UP. William Kennington, of Okarainio, a creditor of the Marlborough Brewery and Aerated WateV tympany, m ido an application in tho Supreme Court yesterday that the company be wound up. The company, it appeared, was willing to accede to such an order, but the application was opposed by Mr. 1. G. M Larthy, who was also a creditor. " „ Mr. Justice Sim presided. Mr. ri. h. Evans appeared for Ken-iington, Mr. D. Jackson for the company, and Mr. G. ii. Peacock for tho objecting creditor. Mr. Evans said the capital of the companv was 10s. being uncalled up.' The latter sum was mortgaged with another interest to Mr. O ConSell, of Masterlon, for rflMO. The petitioning creditor pressed for iM, and bOO was still owing. A ]««R mcnt ™\ this amount remained unsatisfied. Inn amount in hand was about -6120, which was required for current wages and wprkiiur e4on<=cs. The sum of JE2/50 was efumfto Mr. T. G. Macarthy by mortca"e over the brewery, and guaranteed bj tho directors. The principal sum would fall dne next Thursday. Mr. Macarthy intimated that he was not willing to renew the mortgage unless it was guarantesd by the directors or i£me other substantial persons, but this guarantee could not be obtained. The sum of ,£7OO was owing to the National Ban!,-secured by VV.ll>nm Irndlay also had a secured debt of .£I2OO. The ! unsecured debts amounted to £250, and promissory notes, totalling .£l7O, due in ho next four months. A a meeting of shareholders, Mr. Macartl.y's voting power tiuiWed him to control the meeting, and resolutions to wind-up, and to call up fresh capital were defeated. Mr. Jackson said that the directors wero unanimously of opinion that tho company should be wound-up. Mr. Peacock said that his client acted as he did owing to the conduct of the directors He believed that the company could pay its debts. His client was a shareholder in tho company, and though, its affairs should be fully investigated. The reason tho wind-up resolution was not carried was that no statement of the company's affairs was presented at the meeting Still, the directors were determined to liquidate. If any order was made, he asked that any sale that might be directed be by public auction. _ _ His Honour was of opinion that the creditor was entitled to an order for tho winding-up of the company. The company was unablo to pay its debt to him, after he had made proper demand, and secured a judgment of the Court for it. As to the objector, it might be that he had a. grievance against the directors for their failure to put the proper position of tho company before the shareholders in the report and balance-sheet for 1910. Tho petitioning creditor had proved his case, and Mr. Macarthy had not put forward sufficient reason for the withholding of the order. The order' for winding-up was made accordingly, the costs of the petitioner to he taxed aiid paid out of the assets of the company. . '

CRIMINAL SIDE, WITNESSES-AND LEGAL DELAY. A charge of criminal assault, against John Maloncy, which had been adjourned from the last criminal sessions, owing to Iho absence of a witness, was again preferred against accused at the Court yesterday. Mr. Neavo appeared for the Crown. Mr. Fitzgibbon,- on behalf of accused, applied for a further remand until next criminal sessions on the ground that an important witness for tho defence had not yet. been secured. ■ His Honour said under the circumstances lie would grant the application in this case, but it must not bo taken as a precedent. He desired it to be clearly understood that if there was any danger of a witness going away it was the duty of ihe prosecutor or defendant lo have such witness, examine;! in tho Court below, so that tho depositions could bo used in tho Supremo Court. CAUSES IN DIVORCE. Sparling v. Sparling.—Evelyno Marion Boyes Sparling petitioned for a dissolution of her marriage with Walter Herbert Macdonald Sparling on the ground of misconduct. The case was undefended, and his Honour tho Chief Justice made a decree nisi.

Henry Butters applied for a dissolution of his marriage with Eva Butters on the ground of misconduct, the co-respond-ent l>eing'Herbert Williams, windnvdresscv, Wellington. Mr. T. M. Wilford appeared for petitioner. A decree nisi was granted, with costs against corespondent. Johnston v. Johnston—A decree nisi was granted to Robert Forbes Weir Johnston for a dissolution of his marriage with Sarah Johnston on the ground of misconduct.