SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2721, 16 March 1916, Page 9

SUPREME COURT

A NEW PLYMOUTH LIBEL ACTION His Honour Sir. Justine Hosking was engaged in the Supremo Court all day yesterday in hearing a motion for a new trial in the action of Saunders v. Weston, recently heard at New Plymouth, llaintiff is the general manager of the laraiialu Amusements, Ltd., and he claimed £100U damages from tlie "Taranaki Herald" for an alleged libel contained in an article referring to his management, of the hall under : his control. The jury found a'verdict for the newspaper, and plaintiff moved for a new trial 011 the ground that the jury had been misdirected by the Judge, and that the verdict was against the weight of evidence. Mr. M. Myers appeared in support of the motion, to which opposition was raised by Sir. C. P. Skerrett, K.C., with him Mr.-- T. S Weston.

During the early part of Mr. Myers's argument-, a brief discussion took placo on the definition of "defamatory." His Honour pointed out, that there ■were' good reasons why the matter was left to a jury, who might possibly take the measure of the plaintiff from some local knowledge. Mr. Myers contended that a jury had no right to do that. If a word used against a business man was obviously defamatory, a jury had no right to find against him.

His Honour: What is defamatory? The word must be "obviously defamatory to the twelve men trying the case.

Mr. Myers declared that if His Honour's view were correct, then there could never be a new trial in a libel action.

His Honour remarked that such a new trial was a very hard thing to obtain. In libel actions, a great deal depended oil the personal equation of the person libelled. In tho case of a case-hardened sinner, a statement made against liim might not bs libellous, whereas a similar statement might libel a man in a-high position. Legal argument was concluded shortly before 5 p.m., His Honour reserving decision.

AN APPEAL DISMISSED,

An appeal from a decision of the Magistrate's Court,- in the case of James Cowie v. tht> Paparoa Coal-mining Company, Ltd., was decided in the Supreme Court yesterday,,in a reserved decision delivered by His Honour Mr. ■ Justice Hosking. The case came before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M., in August last, when the plaintiff (Cowie), who is a waterside worker, claimed £44 13s. damages from the defendant company for injuries received on May 14, 1915, while working on the hulk Helen Dennv. The claim was greater than that allowed to a worker under the Workers' Compensation Act in ordinary cases of accident, and the defendant company contended that plaintiff (Cowie) could not succeed at common' law unless ho proved negligence on tlio part of tbo defendant company in employing an incompetent foreman on the work in which plaintiff was engaged at the"time of the accident. The Magistrate, however, decided the ease in favour of the plaintiff, who was awarded the full amount claimed, with costs. The defendant company appealed, hut tlie appeal was yesterday dismissed, with 5 guineas costs.

At the hearing, Mr. 0. H. Treadwcll appeared for tlie appellant company, while Mr. P. J. O'Regan appeared for tlje respondent (Cowioj.

INSURANCE MONEY. Matters connected with the Paparoa Coal Company, Ltd., in liquidation, formed the subject of a reserved judgment delivered by His Honour Mr. Justice Hosking in the Supreme Court yesterday. In September, 1915, the company went into liquidation, and in November an action was commenced in the Supreme Court by the debentureJiolders' to settle the ownership of certain moneys. It was then decided that the liquidator was-entitled to tlio balanco at the bank, and that the de-benture-holders wore entitled to enter

into possession of property under the Mortgage Extension Act. .-Further questions were reserved for future argument, and one of tlicse came beforo the Court last week, when His Honour was asked to say whethor the liquidator was entitled ( to insurance moneys payable on the manager's house, or whether the. debenture-holders could have the property reinstated by, the insurance company. itr. C. P. Skerrett, K.C., with him Mr. R. Kennedy, appeared for the de. benture-holders, : while Mr. 0. C. Mazengarb appeared for the liquidator. His Honour ruled that the insurance should be devoted to the work of reinstating the property.