SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1842, 30 August 1913, Page 14

SUPREME COURT.

OHAKUNE LIBEL ACTION. ' THE POSTAL OFFICER. f RESIDENT'S LETTER TO HIS SUPERIOR. - The result of the Ohakune libel case, which was followed with interest when i herad at Palmerston North in May, ' was announced yesterday afternoon at j tlio Wellington Supremo Court ..by bis , Honour Mr. Justice Chapman, who read - two judgments—that of the Chief Jus- < tico and his own. The case was one in 1 which William Canning, postmaster, at j Ohakune, sued Alexander Horbert Wil- , kie, land agent, for libel. The case 1 was tried -before Mr. Justice Chapman < and a jury at Palmerston North, a 1 vcrdict being given for the plaintiff for j £250 damagos. Tlio libel, it was al- ] leged, was contained in a letter, dated, i August 19, 1912. This letter had been J ■addressed to "W. R. Morris, Secretary G.P.0., Wellington," who was Cannmg's superior officer. Thero had j been ill-feeling between Canning and i Wilkie. The letter to Canning's super- ] ior contained an allegation that lie had sold whisky to a Chinese, a convicted ( sly: grog-seller. , _ j The finding of tho Chief Justice as to 1 the nonsuit action, which had been ar- • gued at Wellington, was that parts of j the libel were true; and that the parts , truo seemed to bo as much a reflection on the plaintiff as the other parts which had not been proved to be true. The words, alleged to bo defamatory, appeared in a letter sent to.the Secretary, of the G.P.0., which were as follows: — "A police raid was made in Ohakune about two months ago on tho premises of a Chinaman —Ah Duck King—a convicted sly grog-seller. Some liquor was seized by the police, and. when giving evidence in open , Court the . Chinaman stated, on oath, that he had received the ' ; whisky from . Mr. Canning. As a resident of the district, therefore, I , ( respectfully submit that an explanation should be made in connection with this matter." ■ In what is termed his "innuendo," , the plaintiff said that he meant that "defendant falsely and maliciously pub- , lished the defamatory statements, and , implied that ho had been guilty of gross ; 'misconduct in the discharge of his olfi- j cial duties, and had acted as postmaster ( in a manner which was unjustifiable and , discreditable to him, .by supplying j whisky to tho Chinese for tho purpose of enabling him to carry on the illegal < business of *gly grog-selling, . knowing ] such whisky was to bo used for such j purpose, and that plaintiff/was a party; j to such business of sly grog-selling, and ( was interested therein for the purposes of profit, and that ho (plaintiff) was therefore unfit to occupy the office of , postmaster." It was. true that there was a polico raid, that whisky was seized, and that one bottlo was received by the Chinese from Canning.- Ohakune was a prohibited district, and liquor had to bo brought in by notifying the f Clerk of tho Court.Canning stated. t that ho had borrowed a bottle of whisky from the Chineso in February, and returned it to him a few days after, but had denied that ho had ever supplied him with whisky. It was doubtful (said his Honour) whether that trans- ; action was equivalent to a sale, but it seemed one in which a Government officer in a No-License district should not engage. "This Court," added his Hon- j our, ''lias nothing to do with tho vcr- c ' diet which seems (at any rate, so far 0 as the amount of damages is concerned) 4 to bo nn extraordinary' one." Ho (j agreed that the costs should be award- s ed as mentioned ill the judgment of Judge Chapman. p The finding of Mr. Justice Chapman a was that plaintiff had not discharged the onus which lay on him of proving that tlio letter was reasonably capable of a defamatory meaning, and therefore, libellous, and that lie must.be nonsdit- j. od. . , The motion for a nonsuit was tlierofore unsuccessful, and the vcrdict of j, £250 damages and costs holds good. c ' DEBTOR'S POSITION. f' w j. .THE CASE OF HERMANN LEWIS. 'I Tho case of Hermann Lewis, the missing debtor, was mentioned before Mr. ' Justico Chapman, Mr. A. Dunn asking- a for an adjournment of the bankrupt petition in his estate and explaining that tho creditors had set up a committee to investigate debtor's position and uii- 0 til that report was presented tho peti- ci tioniiig creditor did not wish to press C the order. His Honour granted a fort- I night's adjournment subject to tliero ti being a judge tliero to hear it. 1 n BUILDER'S FUTILE CLAIM. {j JUDGE'S COMMENTS. s< His Honour Judge Sim delivered judgment yesterday in the case in which C Henry Edwin Manning, contractor, El- 0 lis Avenue, sued Mrs. Ellen Hall, St. Mary Street, for £36, balance duo on t! the building of a house at' tho corner > of Tinakori Road and St. Mary Street, t for Mrs. Hall, which, on being found to have 4} feet on tho roadway, had to bo reorganised and made smaller. The hearing lasted all day on Wednesday and part of Thursday morninß-. ■ His Honour, in giving judgment, 6aid a that plaintiff agreed to erect a shop and t' house for £675, and after tho work had 0 been well advanced tho width of tho a new building had to be' decreased, and other consequential alterations had to * bo niado by plaintiff, who alleged that 3 after allowing for saving in labour and material the alterations had caused him an additional cxpenso of £36, which 110 claimed to bo entitled to add to tho A contract price. Tlio defendant, on .the "other hand, claimed to be entitled to deduct £27 6s. from .the contract price on account of tho saving to the plaintiff by reason of the alteration. His Hon- if, our concluded from tlio evidenco that c tho alteration was made at nn carlior A stage of the building operations than " that stated by the plaintiff, and that lie t< did not suffer any loss by reason of tho " alteration. When the alteration was P agreed 011 nothing was said about a , now contract and in tho receipt of February 26 t'he contract prico was treated _ •as being £675. His Honour added that ft he was not satisfied that defendant au- s | thorised plaintiff to employ an architect v to prepare plans of the building as al- tl torod. Plaintiff claimed £39 ißs. 6d. n for extras, anc", defendant admitted ex- a tras for £10 ISs. Gd. and denied author- ®' ising tlio others. He preferred her evidenco and the result was that plaintiff was entitled to recover a balanco of £73 Bs. Gd. on the contract prico and jj extras, after deducing £612 10s. for pay- S ] mqnts on account. Of that amount £42 p 2s. Gd. had been paid into Court, so r< judgment would bo for tho balanco of T £31 6s. "Plaintiff," said his Honour, c "is entitled to somo costs, but the caso a is ono in which he should not be allowed full costs. Tho defendant placcd herself in plaintiff's hands. and allowed him to do tho work without' any ? supervision on her behalf. In these a circumstances plaintiff ought to havo J, endeavoured to bo scrupulously fair to n tho defendant. T nsteod of drira that^t

lie lias attempted to establish against her some claims that ho must have known perfectly well were not honest." His Honour allowed plaintiff £7 75., costs and the expenses of two witnesses. Mr. A. W. Blair represented plaintiff and Mr. W. H. D. Bell appeared for defendant-.