LAW REPORTS

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1492, 15 July 1912, Page 9

LAW REPORTS

THE HASTINGS LIBEL ACTION. MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL. ARGUMENT OVER THE VERDICT. A libel action, beard in Napier last. March, came up for further mention in tile Supremo Court, before the Chief Justice (Sir ltobort Stout), on Saturday morning. This was the case of Horace Inn Siiiison, shrep farmer, of llavelock North, v. the "Tribune" Company, Ltd., of .Hastings. On the occasion of the lioaring in Napier the jury answered the issues submitted to them as follows:— Is thb paragraph published in the "Tribune" a libel on plaintiff?—" Yes." .lias tho paragraph the meaning alleged by plaintiff?—" Yes." Is the paragraph, if it has 6uch a meaning, true?—" Yes." Did the plaintiff, in the month of Decenibsr, 1005, assault Kendeivou (.'arrick, as alleged in paragraph (a) of paragraph ■1 of the statement of defence?—"i es." Did plaintitf on May 14, l'JO!), assault o-.ie Victoria Wertheimer as alleged in paragraph (b) of paragraph i of tho statement of defence? —"No." Did plaintiff, in tho month of July, 1907, assault 1-'. Corbauid, as alleged in paragraph (e.) of paragraph 4 of the statenicnt: of defence — "Its." .What damages (if any) is plaintiff entitled to recover from defendant —"One farthing." When that verdict was returned, Mr. Skerrett, on behalf of 'defendant company, applied for judgment on the findings, but the Judge stated that he would reserve the matter for further consideration in Wellington, ae the finding was inconsistent, in that the jury found that there was a libel, and that the parigraph published in the "Tribune" was true. When the case M-as called again on Saturday, Mr. B. J. Dolan, with Mr. H. i\ Ayson, appeared for tho plaintiff (H. I. Sinison), and Mr. C. P. Skerrett, K.C., with Mr. W. G. Wood, appeared for the defendant company. Mr. Skerrett again asked that judgment should be entered up for the defendant company on the findings of tho jury. jMt. Dolan, on behalf of the plaintiff, moved for a new trial on the ground that the damages M-erc too email; that the verdict of the jury was not unanimous, as provided by the Juries Act, IMS;-that tho statement of facts alleged by HlO foreman of the jury to have been fciuul proved by the jury were not put into writing and signed by him, such statement bang in the nature of u special verdict cm which subsequent legal argument should take place as arranged by counsel and directed by the Judge; that the findings of the jury were to defective that the judge could not give judgment upon them; that the foreman of the jury entered the courtroom after the expiration of three hours from the time of the jury's retiring, stating he had been deputed by the jury to ask tho Judge a question with reference to the issues, and that the. foreman did not put the question, nor did ho again return to the jury room; and that three members of the jury who had dissented from the findings Mere under the impression on arriving in the court room that such questions had bean put and answered, and that tho foreman had obtained the Judge's permission to take a. threefourths verdict, and that therefore they remained tacit when the foreman announced the alleged verdict, whereas he had not obtained such permission; and that the findings of tho jury on certain of the issues Mure against the weight of evidence. In supporting the, grounds of the motion, counsel contended that the verdict was inconsistent in that libel had been found for the plaintiff, and that tho verdict being for plaintiff on tho main issues he was entitled to damages. .Mr. Skerrett contended that the practice of the Court, long established, had been not to interfere in cases where a farthing damages had been returned, Tho rulo regarding a "defective" finding of a jury was that such finding was to bo read sensibly. Counsel replied at length to Mr. Dolan's arguments. * Subsequently Mr. Dolan formally moved for judgment for plaintiff. His Honour, after referring to tho clear and concise arguments of counsel, reserved decision. APPEAL CASE. AN AGENT'S AGREEMENT. "Tho importance of this case is in no way measured by the amount involved. The decision aifeots hundreds of agreements between the appellant society and its agents throughout New Zealand and it also affects other companies working under similar agreements. It is desirable, therefore, that the point should bo authoritatively settled." This remark Mas made by Sir John ■"Fintflay, K.C., in the Supreme Court before Mr. Justice Chapman on Saturday morning. The veferenco was to the case of the Colonial' Mutual Life Society, Ltd. v. W. F. Clnxton —an appeal from the decision of Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M. Sir John I'imllay, K.C., with him Mr. E. M. Watson, appeared for the appellant society, and Mr. E. J. Fitzgibbon. appeared for the respondent. Tho appeal was from a decision of a case heard in the Magistrate's Court last September. Tho respondent (defendant in the Lower Court) was a servant in the employ of the appellant society, under an agreement of a somewhat involved nature. In the Lower Court lie was sued for the sum of. i!ll Us. 6d., alleged to bo duo under the agreement (but not for failing to account for moneys). ' Judgment M'as given for thri defendant with costs, the magistrate holding that • tho claim Mas not an equitable one. Notice of appeal was given and the parties agreed upon a ease stated on. point of law. Counsel for the appellant argued that the magistrate's finding was wrong in point of law, as tho agreement had been entered into and the claim came within the terms of the agreement, which he contended M'as fair and reasonable.

Counsel for the respondent argued that, as the magistrate had nil the facts before him Kind made his finding (that the. claim M'as inequitable) on those, facts tho Court should not set aside the judgment unless it M-as satisfied that that judgment Mas altogether unreasonable. He further' contended that the agreement iras not; in issue at all, the magistrate dealing merely with an individual case on its merits. This M-as in answer to Sir John Findlay's con. tention that the agreement wns at stake, and would affect the company throughout Australasia.. His Honour reserved decision. MAGISTRATE'S COURT. (Before Mr. W. G. Eiddell, S.M.) At the Magistrate's Court on Saturday, George Hastings M-as sentenced to one month's imprisonment on a charge of having stolen £1 15s. worth of sheet lead from Murdoch and Wallace. For insobriety, William Williams M-as fined XI, and Carrie Corbett was fined 10s. and prohibited.