LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 124, 19 February 1919, Page 8

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

M.P. IN THE SUPREME COURT

THE GRIERSON-TIIACKER CASE. Sir,—Great interest has been evinced throughout the Dominion.in the Supreme Court case, particulars of which have nppoared in your last week's issue. A returned soldier brought on action for damages against a member of Parliament, who (it was alleged) had at a largely-attended meeting at the Town Hall stated that the soldier in qfiestion when sent to the front, had deserted from our forces, and gone over to the enemy. Several witnesses came forward and swore on oath that they were present at the meeting, and distinctly heard the M.P. make use of the word's above stated. The member for Parliament, however, denied on oath that he had ever mode , such a statement; and several witnesses, who stated that they were at the meeting in question—aim'iltaf they must have heard the defendant had he made such an assertion—swore on oath that the M.P. did not make the 'state-\ ment attributed to him, consequently it was loft "to the jury to deoide between the defendant and his witnesses, and the witnesses for plaintiff. The jury found in favour of plufntiff. Now comes the question, after this verdict, Can defendant retain his position as member of Parliament, and is this the end of the mutter?—l am, etc.,

INQUIRER. ITlio verdict of the jury does not afreet the defendant's retention of his seat as a'member of Parliament.!