FINDING FOR £670.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1220, 31 August 1911, Page 6

FINDING FOR £670.

THE SLANDER CASE. SIONCKTON VERSUS BYRON BROWN J ANSWERS OF THE JURY, (By Telegraph.—Special Correspondent.! "■i' : Palmorston, August 30. ■Tho slander action—C. A. W. Monckton v/Byron Brown—was continued in the Supremo Court this morning. " ',;;;Mr. Brown in the Box. ■ Byron ■ Brown—managing director of Messrs. Byron Brown, Ltd., Otaki, and defendant" in tho action—continued his evideiice. He stated that ho had attended ascertain Maori wedding at Otaki, but did not travel in the train afterwards. On tho same day ho had had a conversation with Bcattie 'in his (witness's) office. Witness had.then said that he did not think thai: Moncktbn could afford to fight tho election, and he did not think that he had,any chance.

•His Hononr interjected that this was merely an opinion, and not slanderous, in that ho did not refer to promissory notes of Monckton's.

la conversation with Beattio witness had been particularly on Ms guard. That was because he' had- frequently seen Beattie in company with Monckton. Ho had never said to anyone that the whole district was "chasing Monekton for money." He had never had a conversation with Howell on the bowling green. Howoll had como to him in the same way as Beattio had como to him in»his ofhce. Howell'was a butcher in business next to witness's Otaki store, and he had said that reports were current regarding Monckton's finances. Witness had thereupon rejoined that ho knew nothing at. nil, about Monekton's , affairs. Ho. thought that Howell, being a friend of Jlonckton's, waa.. being used as a trap to catch him (witness). Ho did not dispute- the allegations as to what ho said to Mr. R. R. Martin. .Mr. Alartin had come-to see him officially as the Opposition organiser, and to inform him that Mr. Monckton had been selected as the Opposition candidate for tho Otaki seat. MK Monckton's chances had then been discussed, witness referring to his incapacity-ahd his want of finances. Mr. Martin had thoh.asked witness , to tell him the facts of, ; the case, and witness made it a special condition that tho conversation should : be strictly private and confidential. Mr;-Martin did not then say that it would not bo confidential. Ho said nothing about it at all. Witrass, accordingly,-.informed him of certain facts concerning .a promissory note. When Mr. Strawbridge came in for the renewal of the first bill ho stated that JHonckton had told him that ho (Monckton J waa hard 'rip, and could not pay. In consideration of this, witness had agreed to a renewal when the next bill became due in June. The same thine had happened again. Monckton was hard up, and he wanted n renewal. The charge mado against witness-.(in re alleged conversation on the bowling green) was a a purely social matter, and had nothin" to do with tho present case. Ho had taken tho occasion to write to Monckton in order to ascertain if any of witness's servants had treated "him uncivilly as he had heard that Mr. Monckton had remarked that he'could not get civility at witness's store. Witness would' swear that ho did not state, in' that letter, that the volume of business was not as great a-s formerly. The lending of money was not a department of tho business. When he had vnsert tho words to Skerman—"l can t get. my money out of him"—he had referred'to a- promissory note, and a debt 0fv383»25.' - Witness, however, had honestly believed that Mr. Monckton had been «j pushed that ho could not pay Sl m ">»■ dcM" °f advanced on Mr. Strawbndges p.n. ' .

.._ Statement to a Trade Agency. ' ;

•.Witness was the Otaki correspondent of Dun and Co.-a business protection x g . enc i,- -It was his business to ascertain tho financial position of people in his district. Dun and Co. had asked him to make a report on , Monckton,. and he had done so. It.vvns a'satisfactory report, as far as^he-was ■concerned; He. had stated in it'that Mrs. Monckton' was a rich woman, and Mr. Monckton would jot go, wrong" while she was alive. He- admitted saying to Skerman: "If this bill is met to-morrow, I will give you your house." The Wagering of a ho'nso on tho question was .but a foolish joke, witness had written to Dalgoty and Co. (on June 1) referring to a rumour regarding Mr. Monckton's financial stabilir y —m ■ , . he had ieM( I that Mr. Monckton was going to -sue m ™ Mr-slander, and that he (witness) might consider whether he also would not issue a writ against Moa'ctton" Witmess also wrote to Dalgety and Co. and tho 3Sew Zealand Loan and Mercantile -Agency Co., asking them to contradict the statement- that he: had given information regarding. Mr. Monckton's financial nosition. .: •■-.■•••• ■ » ■ . ■

.The evidence of Albert Strawbrid»e (deceased) was read. Archibald J. S. Thompson, manager of the Bank, of New Zealand's branch at Otaki, stated that he remembered Mr Brown, coming to see ."him about two pi's endorsed; by Mr. '■Jlonckton. The note was not lodged for collection. It was shown to him because tho endorsement •was peculiar. It was endorsed: "Accepted; payable at the Bank of Australasia. ' .Witness's opinion was nsked as ■to endorsement. On ala tor occasion ho saw anether p.n., and he was asked whosa bill it was. • It'was not signed in tho usual place for." a signature, but had ■tho usual endorsement on the back bv Mr. Morickton. , .

; Mrs. "Flora Strawbridgo, wife of 41bort Strawbridge (deceased), stated that «he had eeea Brown in connection with a .promissory, note. Sho had received a document from Brown after her husb/and went into tho hospital, and vsho went with it. to Mr. Moncktan. Kho . asked him if he would pay it,' and he said 'No, and that he could not, and would jot. His was probably in December. Ho said':that Mr. Brown hnd "robbed" Mr. Strawbridge (became the amount should have been for ,£2O, instead of for £21). He then endorsed the bill, and witness took it back to Mr. Brown. Her husband's signature was not on it at this time. Sho afterwards went to the hospital, and got her husband's signa.tnre. She then gavo the bill to Mr.' •Brown. ..

Counsel addressed the jury, which retired at 4.15 with 28,- issues to consider, law points being reserved. ■ - Findings of tho Jury. The issues for the jury and the findings were as. follow:—•1. DM;..the plaintiff-carry on tho business of: a farmer and stock dealer?— "Yes." ~. . ... 2. Did'the defendant speak to one Leslie- Skerman of and concerning the plaintiff, as a farmer and. stock, dealer, the words in the first cause of action mentions! ?—"Yes." 3. Wore the said words .faleo and malicious?—" Yes." ■ ;.■• .■ 4 "Were the words defamatory of tlio ■ plaintiff in his business?—" Yes." ■ 5. Did tho words mean that the plaintiff -was in pecuniary difficulties, and that Tie, was unable to pay his debts, or not worthy of ■■commercial credit ?—"Yes:" ■ sa. Was the defendant, in speakin" to Leslie Skermau as he did, actuated by express malice agniast the plaintiff? ■ ?>■ What damages, if nny, is the plaintiff entitled to recover in lespect of this ,cnusp of action ?—"£2t)o." . 7. Did the defendant speak to one Rowland Youns of and concerning the plaintiff, as a farmer and stock dealer, the .■words in the second caiiso of action mentioned ?—"Yes." 8. Were the words false and malicious? 9. Were tho said words defamatory of the plaintiff in his business?—" Yes." in. Did the word? mean that the plaintiff ivas. in . pecuniary difficulties, nud that he was unablo to pay his debts or not worthy of commercial credit?— "Yes." 11. AYhat damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover in respect of this ennse of nction?—"X2oo." 12. Ditl the defendant speak to ono Stanley Bcattie of and concerning the plaintiff, as a farmer and stock dealer, the vonls on the third cause of action •tiicntioned?— "Yes,"-

13. Were the said words false and malicious?—" Yes." 11. Were the words defamatory of tho plaintiff in his busiuess ':— "Yes. . 15. Did tho words mean that the plaintiff was in pecuniary difficulties, and that ho was unablo to pay his debts, or not worthy of commercial credit?—" Yes." IG. What damages, if any, is tho plaintiff entitled to recover in respeot of this cause of action ?-".£100." 17. Did 'he defendant speak to one John David Itowell of ami concerning the plaintiff, as a farmer and stock dealer, the words in Ihe fourth clail'stf.'of action mentioned ?— "Yes." ■ ' •„" 18. Were the said words false and malicious ?—"Yts." 1!). Were the said words defamatory of the plaintiff in his business?—" Yes." -0. Did the words mean that the plaintiff was in pecuniary difficulties, and that he was unable to pay his debts, or not worthy of commercial" credit?—"Y«s." -1. What damage?, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover in respect of this cause of action ?—" .£150." 22. Did tho defendant speak to one Robert Richard Marthrof and concerning the plaintiff as a farmer and stock dealer, tho words in the fifth cause of action mentioned ?—"Yes." 23. Were tho said words false and malicious .'—"Yes." . 2J. Were the said words defamatory of tho plaintiff in his business?—" Yes." 25. Did the words mean that the plaintiff was in pecuniary difficulties, and that he was unable to pay his debts, or not worthy of commercial credit ?—"Yes." 25a. Was the defendant, in speaking to Robert Richard Martin as he did, actuated by express malice ngainst the plain-tilT?-"Ycs." 2G. What damages, if any, is the plaintilt entitled*to recover in respect of this cause of action ?—",£20." ' ; The total damages were .£670, with costs as in one action, second day counsel and disbursements.