AT MASTERTQN.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1231, 13 September 1911, Page 7

AT MASTERTQN.

LAW CLERK CLAIMS £1002 FROM NO-LICENSE ORGANISER. THE ACTION FAILS. In tho Supremo Court at Masterton yesterday, before his Honour Sir Robert Stout, C.J.. a ease was heard in which J. J. Kelliher, law clerk, claimed from Jabex Bridges 'a sum of .£IOO2 in respect of alleged libels published on or about June 30 to tho newspaper stall's of the "Wairarapa Age" and "Wairarapa Daily Times." Mr. D. Iv. Logan, with Mr. Pownall, appeared for plaintili', and Mr. P. L. Rollings for defendant. Tho following jury was empanelled:— Messrs. T. T. I)enby*(foreman), W. Jones, P. Kilminster, W. G. Hawthorne, IT. W. Bungatc, .T. C. Brewer, E. Eagle, S. H. Stokes, w. Adams, T. Cooper, and T. Rowlands. Mr. Pownall intimated that he had amended his causa of action by striking out tho "Wairarapa Daily Times" in 0110 of the paragraphs. Ho went on to state that the plaintiff was a law clerk in his (Mr. pownall's) employment, and in such position was entrusted with the handling of money. The defendant was one of tho orgauisers of tho No-Liceuso party. On March 30 a letter was published in the "Wairarapa Age," in reply to a letter inserted in the "Wairarapa Daily Times" by Kelliher. On the following day a report of tho meeting of the No-License party was published in the "Wairarapa Age," in which it was stated that Kelliher was defective in moral rectitude. This, it was alleged, was grossly libellous. Proceedings had been inI'Stitutod against the "Wairarapa Age" Company, and that paper had subsequently apologised and paid JMO as expenses. • His Honour: Does that not preclude your first cause of action in this case? Mr. Pownall replied that had been pleaded, but ho intended arguing' tho point. His Honour: I merely mention tho fact at this stage. I am afraid you will find yourself precluded. Mr. Pownall proceeded to stato that Kelliher had no interest in tho licensing question, excepting that his father had been a hotelkecper at Elwtahuna, and had suffered through his hotel being closed. Tho plaintiff was naturally anxious to seo the licenses restored. Tho, defendant Bridges had lodged three defences to the claim, two of which had been amended. In one of these it had be-en alleged that Ke-lliher had been guilty of publishing insulting correspondence. It would bo proved, however, that this was not tho case. The defence alleged that tho words were not.defamatory; that they had not teen published hy defendant, and, if t'hey had been published, they were fair comment. A clau'so had been added <to tho dcfenco alleging that the plaintiff had unjuslifi ably attacked the business men of Master, ton and other people. It' would be shown, however, that even if this were the case, it would be no defence in law. The cor respondence on the No-License question had been started by Kelliher as a result of an address delivered by Mr. Tocltor at Stratford, but tho strictures of Kelliher could not bo regarded as unjustifiable. In nono of Kelliher's letters could it be said that he. had been abusive. It would be urged for t'ho defence that a sum of .£4O had already been paid in satisfaction by tho "Wairarapa Age." In answer to this Kelliher would stato that ho had no desire to "slato" the newspaper, and that the person whom it was desired to make pay was Bridge!. •

Plaintiff in the Box. John J. Kellihcr, plaintiff, slated that lie had received a letter from Bridges, inviting him to attend a meeting in the Town Hall. In a circular which was issued, it was said . that statements of tradesmen would.be rend at tho j meeting. It, was in consequence of : this' that iio (witness) wrote his loiter. Ho was in no wdy allied with the liquor party, although his father had been ruined by tho closing of hotels. Ho had felt' aggrieved at the publication of a certain letter in tho press becauso ho felt that his reputation had been attacked. In his proceedings against the "Wairarapa Age" Company ho had thought that tho paper was not so much to blame as Mr. Bridges, Tho action against tho "Ago" was instituted on July 1, and a letter had been forwarded to Bridges on July 13 demanding an apology. This action was still pending when tho-action against tho "Age" was settled. He had been present at the No-License meeting at the Town Hall. To Mr, Hollings: Ho had not attended the meeting iu answer to a challenge. It was true that he had accepted J!10 from tho "Wairarapa Ago" in settlement of a cause of action, and it was also truo that tho defamatory matter complained of in tho second action was the samo as in the first, but he did not wish to bo exacting with the newspaper. It was not true that ha had gone to tho newspaper and asked for an apology. He had simply issued a writ on the morning of tho issue of the alleged libel. He could not say why he had sued the "Age" and not the "Daily Times." Ho admitted having proceeded to tho "Daily Times" office, and had told someono there that he had issued a writ against the "Age," at tho same time warning the former paper against further publication. He had no ill-feel-ing against the "Age," and had no desiro to humiliate it. He had, however, insisted upon the "Age's" apology being published in a prominent place in the "Wairarapa Daily Times," and had given the latter paper a paragraph stating that a writ was issued against Bridges. Ho had issued this writ against Bridges simultaneously with the. settlement with tho "Age." Ho was not aware that Mr Pownall had promised Dr. Trimble that tho action against Bridges would not bo proceeded with. An affidavit from Dr. Trimblo was here put in by Mr. Hollings, alleging, amongst other things, that Mr. .Pownall had stated at the time of the settlement over tho "Age" case that he did not intend proceeding with the action against Bridges, becauso ho was "not worth powder and shot." Witness was still in the employment of Mr. Pownall, and he was not aware that ho had suffered any special damage by the publication of the libel. The MO was not paid over until two davs after tho issue of the writ against Bridges. It was true that when witness had asked that tho tradesmen of Masterton (should substantiate their statements by allowing their books to be examined by a public accountant, he had meant to infer that ho did not accept their statements. He could not say how he was affected morally by tho statement contained in tho letter of Mr.'Bridges. Tho damago dono u;as really by innuendo. ■ Witness was here cross-examined about certain letters published by him in the Manawatu "Standard." He admitted that neither Tocker, Bridges, M'Gregor. or tho tradesmen of Masterton had instituted proceedings against him. He did not admit that he had been writing to other centres decrying the township. It was true, however, that he had supplied certain information for publication in the Fcilding "Star," but lie had received no payment. Mr. Hollings proceeded to ask certain questions about empty houses in Masterton, but his Honour, observed that, as justification had not been pleaded, such questions appeared to be irrelevant. To Mr. Logan:-Witness complained that tho report of the meetiug in the Town Hall had been published to the editor of the Wairarapa "Daily Times" and his staff. Other Witnesses,

James Brown, managing director of the "Wairarapa Age" Company, deposed that an advertisement from Bridges had been received by mail from Carterton on September .10. The advertisement was charged to tho No-Licenso League. The last time that witness saw the original of tho advertisement was when it was handed to his sub-editoi. He had not seen it since. He could not say where it was now. Witness had never seen tho original of tho report of tho No-License meeting. He had collected certain documents through his son, but had not seen them. To Mr. Hollings: Ho had been served with a writ on the day of the publication. No opportunity had been given to apologise. Tho case- had been settled by tho payment of XIO. Arthur U. Vile, editor and sub-editor of the "Age," deposed that a certain letter had passed through his hands in the form of an advertisement. The matter contained in that letter was not identical

with what appeared in the advertisement, because lie had excised ceriain portions of it. A report purporting to be a report of the No-License anniversary meeting had passed through hi.-* hand.-. lie could not. say where-Ilie documents were now. \K. .I'. Hrown, manager of the "Wairarapa Age," deposed to having procured certain'papers, which he did not road, but which were signed "Jabcz Bridges." Those wr-rj placed in an envelope and put in the oflice safe. He had not removed them. James Brown, sen., recalled, stated that he had taken an envelope from his safe and placed it on the table in Dr. Trimble's office. This was after the action with the ."Wairarapa Age" had been settled. Dr. Trimble, solicitor, practising in Mastcrton, deposed that he had been acting for the "Wnirarapa Age" Company in the libel charge brought by Kelliher. He had received an envelope from his client, containing certain This envelope was not now in his possession. His Honour expressed doubt as to whether the question of what a solicitor did with a client's document could be put. He, however, allowed it to be put. Witness then stated that he had banded tho document to Mr. Hollings, who was solicitor for Bridges. Robert W. Robson, managing editor of tho "Wairarapa Daily Times,", deposed that he had received a document from Bridges, purporting to bo a report which Bridges intended reading at a meeting in tho Town Hall. Ho had handed the report to his staff, and did not seo it again unfi! Bridges had called for it. He had then returned tho report to Bridges. Ho had deleted a portion of tho report, but had not read tho proof with copy.

The Finding. After hearing a number of other witnesses for plaintiff, Jlr. Hollings (for defendant) urged that there was no case for a jury, on the grounds that the publication had not been proved, and that plaintiff had already received satisfaction in payment of .£4O by the "Wairarapa Age." Mr. Pownall, having replied, his Honour directed the jury to return a verdict for defendant on tho ground that plaintiff, having accepted a settlement from the _ "Wairarapa Age," could not proceed against a second person on the samo cause of action. Tho jury accordingly returned a verdict for defendant with costs.