SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1519, 15 August 1912, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

(Before His Honour Mr. Justice Edwards) THE SCENE AT THE FRUIT MART. SLANDER CLAIM. SECOND DAY'S PROCEEDINGS. 1 urtlier evidence in an action claiming £'501 damages for alleged slander was heard yesterday before Mr. Justice Edwards and a common jury of twelve. Tlio parties to '.he action were: Thomas Hood, fruiterer, of Wellington, plaintiff, and Griffiths and Co., J,td., auctioneers and general merchants, of Wellington, and John Braid, auctioneer, of Wellington, defendants. Sir John Findlay, K.C., v.'ith hiin Mr. D. M. Findlay, .appeared for Hood, while Air. C. P. Skerrett, K.C., with him Mr. 13. J. Fitzgibbon, appeared for the defendants. • Particulars of (ho claim and the defence filed were. published in yesterday's issue. The alleged dialogue at the fruit market, which forms the basis of the action, was given as follows:— Hood: Who was the last bidder? Braid: Mind your own business. Hood: That is my business. 13raid: Well, if it is your business, it is the first business you ever had. Anyhow, it is no use us taking your bid. The. chances are you won't clear your.stuff... . Hood. Can you prove I never clear my stuff? timid: Our books prove that you never pay for your stuff. We havo the samo opinion of you as your association has (meaning the Retailers' Association),. , . A\ hen the adjournment was taken on .Holiday, five witnesses had given evidence in support of the plaintiff's case. When the hearing was resumed yesterday morning, Sir John Findlay called Walter William Jones, secretary of the lletail Fruiteiers' Association, niid Archibald Godfrey, fruiterer, of Wellington. Counsel also put in' a copy of the rules of the lietail Fruiterers' Association. Mr. Skerrett (appearing for defendants, unlliths and Co., Ltd., and John Braid) ■ then raised >a nonsuit point. He contended thai the words complained ot' were not capablo of bearing certain meanings which had been attributed to them in I [ho statement of claim. He thought that ho ivas entitled to a decision on the question as to whether the words were capable of the meaning alleged in tlio "innuendo." His Honour: I don't think vou are. Ton are entitled to ask me for a nonsuit, but vou havo to go further. You have to show me that I am bound to ; say that these words arc not capablo of | a defamatory meaning. Mr. Skerrett indicated that there wero two grounds for. his application for a non-suit: (1) that, the words were not capable of the meaning alleged in the innuendo," and (2) that, in the ordinary and true signification, they were not copaWe' tif bearing a defamatory meaning. ■ His Honour remarked that ho was not prepared to agree that a. defamatory meaning; could hot be' drawn from the" words. He;would reserve the points raised. ••. Mr. Skerrett then addressed the jury. He contended that plaintiff had failed *o nrovo his allesration that the affair was tble' outcome of "something more than a petty quarrel." Ho had not proved that the words, if used, were part of a system relating to certain •asnect« of the business which, it was alleged, obtained in Wellington.' The evidence had altogether failed .'to disclose the existence of a fruit ring, ami proof would be forthcoming that Griffiths .and Co. ha<l nothing to.do with any association. This action for slander was really the result of a netty tmai'i'el. Evidence would l:e called foe tin; fpurnose of show-in? that Braid had never stated that Hood did not. pay for his'-goods, but that lie (Hood) bought goods and neglected to clear them. ~Rvid«nc(- for the defence was (riven by John Braid, one of tihe defendants: jr. .T. Simpson.. fruiterer';, and Alfred Wallis. auctioneer. During t.he hearing of evidence his Fononr 'pointed ont_ that iheve was a difference, betwpon failing tr> clear goods after buying' them, nnd faiUna to tiay for fnnds after taking delivery of them. Still; oven if tho goods not e'eared were r.'cnld, the buyer was no doubt a dejfau'ter. At all events, if a business man vent about Wdd<ns for ""ods and onlv ol'>arin" limn ..when he felt disposed to. it would be a remtoble wa.y of carr'vin»\on bu'-iness. These were matters wlnVili fhn jury would have to emisMpv.

■ <U. «.V"p.m. tOvrfi ivf-rp still further tn be holl«(l, and the Court adjourned until 10.30 a.m. to-day. ■ WAS THERE A CHARTER? DAMAGES SOUGHT IN SHIP CASE. ..'■■■ A'heavy claim for damages was heard in tho Supremo Court yesterday, before MivJuslico Chapman, the'subject mntfci of the case being negotiations that had 'boon entered into for the charter of a sailing vessel to carry timber cargoes from Wangiinui (o Sydney. The main question was as to whether there was any actual contract. The parties were Kasson, Ltd., ■timber merchants, of Kilbirnie, plaintiffs, and j\. Il'ntrick and Co., Ltd., merchants,' of Wiiiifpilnii. ~ Mr. T. X. Jlolniden appeared for tho plaintiffs, and Mr. C. 13. Morison appeared for the defendants. Did Hatrick and Co. Repudiate a Charter of Vessel Carla? In "the. statement of claim it was set out 'that by an agreement, entered into between tho parties in the month of February, 1012, and contained in letters and telegrams dated February H, 10, 17, 13, 11 and 20, Uotrick and Co. 'agreed to charter to Easson, Ltd., the sailing vessel; Carla (then loading at Wellington, for a firstrip to Sydney).. Tho charter was to Iμ foi- the second and three following consecutive trips from Wangnnui to Sydney or jS'ewcast.le for four rargoes of sensoii- , ed white pine, timber, at a freight of 2s Gd. per 100 stipor feet. By letters imd telegrams in March,'Hatrick and Co. had repudiated tbo charter, and had declined . to carry out their contract. Easson. Ltd., had always been, and were still, willing to charter tho Carla. in terms of the original contract. Acting upon the contract, 'Eoison, Ltd., had purchased from various parts of the North Island timber to bo delivered f.o.b. at Wangnnui, to bo shipped by the Carla to Sydney, contracts ha.vin« be-eii entered into for its sale at the latter port. In order to fulfil these latter contracts. 'JJasson, Ltd.. had now .to pay frs'ght of is. 4d. per 100 sutler feet foi fhirnnont nf the timber from Wangjinui tf Sydney. Otherwise the firm would suffer loss of anticipated profits, and would render them-elves liable for breach of contract. For these reasons Ens*on, Ltd. claimed Xftlfi 13s. 4rt s dnmnsrrs, bein? the difference of freijrhts pnyable under tho contract with Ilat.riek and Co.. ond the freights now prevailing. In tho alternative, they claimed tho Fame sum as damages inenrre-d by reason of less of profits and liability for breach of contract. . . I Hatrick and Co.'s Statement of Defence.' In the stalomentof defence, Hatrick and Co. denied havinj? <>ntr>re;] into any contract, and contended that tho letters snd telesrrams referred to in the claim were niCToly urelirninnT.v nppotiatinns, it being intended that a formal charter portv shoTild be drawn np and executed. Hatrick and Co, nlso enid that a charter nartj- in terms of the a?re«nent hod own tendered to ■•Easson. Ltd., who declined to accept it, refusing to awee to the eswntial part of the contract, viz., the STibjpct .matter of the catgo-"seßson-ed" white pine. Hearing of evidence frns not concluded until 4, p.m. After hearing ar?innent of counsel, hi? Hnnonr reserved decision. MOTION FOR JUDGMENT. UNCOMPLETED LAND DEAL. 'A' motion for judgment in » claim for niiniages ivas henvd bpfor.-> 3fr. .luftico Chapmau Lite, yesterday afioinoon. The paTti«s to the action -n-erfl I.ouis Daroux, settler, plaintiff, and Georjro Hamill. defendant. 'Mi. P. .T. O'Kegan appeared for. the :?laintiff in. support of Uie motioa for.. 1

judgment. The defendant was not represented. Mr. O'Regan stated that tho defendant, had now left Xc;v Zonlniid, but he liad been in the- Dominion when the proceedings commenced. It appeared as if ha had been evading service and plaintiff moved in Chnnihers and ohtained leave to proceed by substituted service. After service had been effected at I lie residence of defendant, ihn'lntter left New Zealand without filing a defence, and from what could be gathered did not purpose to return. These proceedings were being continued in ease he did return. Defendant had agreed to purchase from plaintiff a block of land, 2013 acres, ut Shannon, partly in the Horowhenua county and partly in the Wnirarapa, The price of purchase was ,£'3.533, of which sum .£2OO down and promi?rd to pay tin balance on November S last. Defendant failed to pay the balance and had been in default ever since. In terms of the agreement, plaintiff had recovered possession, but by reason of the defendant's failure to complete the deal, plaintiff had been kept out of tho possession for over a year and had thereby suffered damages in respect of which he now claimed tho sum of .£SOO. His Honour lieard the plaintiff's evidence and then reserved decision in order to look up an authority on the question. '