Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

SUPREME COURT.

IN BANCO. Finn ay, November 6. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Chapman. Dodson v, Macandrew,— His Honor eh-: livers judgment in this matter, which w 6 1 rule calling upon the deei.dant ami Celedraph i ominissioner to Imw c u>a wn “ ad telegrams which have passed b tween the Colonial Executive Govnrnm nt. the Provincial Government of Otago. Dav d L Murdoch, manager of the N.Z. Loan and viercantile Agency, and Meesrs PmudfoM •nd Oliver, or between all or any of them, relating to the sale and transfer of the P.»n’ : ; halmera Railway, should not be produced at the trial, and why hi fare such trial the plaintiff or his solicitor should not be a ibe-ty to inspect the same.” Between tin granting of tim rule nisi and its argupient, the General ..ssembly passed an Act which afterwards ripened into iaw, which effec tnaiiy disposed of the rule. Ihe second ami third Keodons of that Act provide that telegrams shall not be produced in evidence unless by consent of the person by or to whom sueh message shall have been sent. The do fe dant iu the action did notsbowcause. bid Mr mitn, Jor the Telegraph Commissiomr did so, wi hj a view to determining the ques cion of costs, which his Honor thought Ee was entitled to do His Honour went on ?o Hay that the plaintiff might have- avoid'd this by giving timely notice of his abandonment of the rule at an earlier sta *e, for there could hardly have been a doubt that upon the carrying of the second reading of the Billon Jmy 14, the passing of the Act became a matier of certainty. 'I he Act having >ut an end to any future question as to what telegrams can be produced by the Department and what cannot, any great elaboration of the question was needless, Thi most important objection to the rule wahat it was too vague and general, and that m asking for all telegrams rfelatiug not to toe matters in dispute, but to the t ansfer of the Port Uhalimrs Rai way, it asked for that with which prina facie the plaintiff had no concern. This rule went beyond the case.' of Jacob v. Le-s and Morris v. Manners, ina< much as it embraced matters not necessarily connected with the action, apparently for the mere chance of picking out here and here a telegram or even a passage directly >r indirectly relating to the matters in dis pute in the action, in asking to inspect the telegrams, the rule was more objectionable than a notice to produce. Why should all the negociations concerting the sale and transfer of the railway, to which the plaintiff was a stranger, be disclosed to him without affording to each recipient the same opportunity of objecting, which he would have in th. o se oi a subpoena duces tecum ? I here wis not even a colorable agency mown in any of the persons named : they were negotiators each probably protecting or pursuing his own interest. The rule there fore seemed too general and inquisitorial. This case attempted to go beyond the iaunron and Brid- ewater election cases. In con elusion, his Honor said, that if the ! l-ictnc i eiegraph Act had not been passed, he woul. nve availed himself of the opportunity which ■jhe rule afforded of entering into a full in vestigation of ihe subject, with a view to attempting to draw an Inteliigib'e and de i nite line between those instances in which telegrams cou'd not be produced and inspected and those m which they could keeping in view as dose y as posaib e the analogy of letters. On the single ground examined the vu e would be discharged wito costs. Mr Macasaey was granted leave to appeal.

Macassby ▼. Bell in re Maoassey.—Rule nisi calling on the plaintiff in the action fc< dtiow causewhy, first, he should not answer the affidavits upon which the rule was granted, and why ho should not pay the

Costa of the rule; aid, secondly, in default or a sufficient answer, why such further order should not be made as to the Court suould seem meet. <ffi duly 27 a considerable number of letters, Judges’ orders, and k legrams appeared in the ‘ Daily limes,’ most of which when read together were more or less, dir ctly or indirectly, connected with proceedings in the actum of Macasaey v Hell. These were introduced to pubhc notice by a letter signal Janies Macissey. There were also thr e other documents bearing the same signature which, if they had no other effect, -served to conn ct the several documents together, under t';e general headmi-', “ Inspection of telegrams ” The doffindant complained that the publication of rhi letters, &e., In fore the action was finally disposed of, w s calculated to pn ju ice him as presenting an ex parte view of tue case to the public, and esp-cialiy to that gomon ot <he public from among whom jurors were chosen, -part fnin the merits, two objections wen raised—one as to the -efficiency of the affidavit, and the other as to the time of tne motion, it beiuo contended that at the date of the publication there was no act on pending before the Court. In giving judgment his Honor said he considered the affidavit of Messrs Turtou and •. after—that they beli- ved the opgiua' cf the letter signed James Maeaes?y was written and S‘ j at together with the telegram.-, ,tc., by the plaintiff and to..t tbs same were published—sufficient in a proceeding for contempt. As io the second point he thought the action had been revival so far as to he a p rading action mi the 27th July, b;f re which date the rule nisi hid ben granted, it wis no answer to say the ml-t might be discharged ac t the cause never uo efore a seemm jury. Little needed to bsaid as to the character and tendency of the publicat on, wh ch he considered cuue vyitlim the objee-iuiiab -• ela-.s, and there on toe rule ran t be mam ah oiute as to the first branch there f. i '<» liosou’s affid tv t v\as irrelevant, and he hid been uni'ole to discover for wat it was died The rule nisi called for an Answering iffiiavit by plaintiff, and ;ot by one of his e’erks The general cope of the publication was to set Mr Ma:assey right iu certain proceedings connected vitli the action, but any view pat for.va d in ! av<ti- - f one pa ty to an action was impliedly -i we or less unfavorable to the other party, though it unglit be in a slight degree only. lo sa up Judge Ward’s cinfection with ■die article e an hd-ed of, as well as w.ih a previous a: ti ie iu ihe * I imam Herald,’ \’e.” was precis iy what w s s -Ugnt to be est b- ■ s ied a r the trial, a d f tuoe should e .. j’’' v -nid i e atti mpted again VVheth r 'hat c ass f evidence wa-: adraissi > e was o- e of the questions now o licr consider-;lion It was an ex parte statcniv nt or sag estiou of a supposed state ■>f facts which was what courts of law and ■ quity eude-vo ed to disc ur.ige and sup- ■ nle ma le ■••'•solute as to the firsbranch, i e for .-.nsweriug tne affidavits the co.imderai.ion of th<- second branch of th ■■iih. ai:J t.f COS'S resetved, Mr Maeasscy btuiaed leave to appeal. ODSUN V. iVIACA.NDREW —Mr Haggitt, for diemlaut, iii. ved for leave to euu-r -, non-am. pursuant to permission granted a; he ml • f this ease, and also foi a rule nls lor a now trial, on thv following j-r unds First, misdiree.i u by the Judge; second, uon dii ection by the Judge; tbiri, ad mis i" n by the Ju ge oi improper ovideu. e ; md fourth, 1 ee.auae tt.e verdict w s against the weighs of evidence. 3 hOHTOX and M‘ Vi ASTER V. HUME AND fHERS ir Haggitt applied for have to fctke th.s case in o the (,'onrt. of Appeal. Mr Maoassev, for the opposite side, consented, and Je: ve was gra ted.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD18741106.2.10

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Evening Star, Issue 3653, 6 November 1874, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
1,379

SUPREME COURT. Evening Star, Issue 3653, 6 November 1874, Page 2

SUPREME COURT. Evening Star, Issue 3653, 6 November 1874, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert