SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3726, 1 February 1875, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SITTINGS, Monday, February I. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Chapman and a Special Jury.) Malauhan v. Wenkueim. —This was an action to recover LI,OOO, damages for alleged slander, from defendant, plaintiff asserting that the latter did falsely and and in a defamatory sense, publish a statemeat that plaintiff was not able to meet his liabilities and had acquired certain property by giving valueless bil s of exchange for it. Mr Macassey, with him Mr Kettle, and instructed by Mr CL B, Barton, appeared for plaintiff; Mr Smith, with him Mr Stout, for defendant. Michael John Malaghan, plaintiff : 1 am a general merchant at Queenstown, and a J.p, and have known defendant for eight or nine years. He was also a merchant, but is not now in business. I know M‘Larn, who kept the Prinpe of Wales Motel, and I purchased some of ijiis property from the trustees in his estate, giving one half in cash and the other in two bills at thfee and four months, Pe.

fendant had been employed by me. [Mr Smith objected to this evidence, and bis Honor sustained the objection ] Cross-exam ned : I was a creditor ot M Larn, and attended a meeting of creditors at hicbardt’s Hotel. Defendant was in the chair at one meeting, and I believe he was a creditor The two hi is matured would have ma ured the bills were drawn up by the t'ustees. Tiiey would have matured in [Mr Macassey objected to these questions, unless counsel for defendant placed a plea of justification on the record, aud his Honor thought them inadmissible.—Mr Smith contended that he was entit ed to get evidence as to these bills, because witness had admitted in examination that thev were three and four months bills. His Honor decided not to allow the question.] I know Haynes a creditor of M'Larn. ’

John Eaton Haynes, storekeeper at Queenstown ; I know plaintiff and defendant, and was a creditor of M'Larn. I had a conversation with defendant about M Larn s estate in September, in my store Defendant came in and said “ M'Larn says the reason the dividend was not paid on Monday is that Malagban’s bills were dishonored. Is that the way that you paid for your place ? I made a note of that conversation a few days afterwards. This took place on September 11, and a few days after M ‘Laren came in with defendant, to know what the latter had said. 1 repeated the words, and defendant then denied using the words, saying he had only said ha had heard that M'Larn said so, that a man named Collins told him so. M'Larn said fhe would not stand under such an imputation, upon which defendant said “ I believe I can still prove that the bills were dishonored.” Defendant at another time said “Malaghan would get himself into trouble, through the way he was acting about these estates." Cioss-examiued ;—ihe second conversation took place on the Monday following, and I took a note of both conversations in a book I have at home. I have a copy of these notes. I was examined by Mr G. B. Barton at Queenstown, but was not asked to produce the book in which I had taken the notes. He asked if I had written them down, and I said I had. I did not ask de iendant, at the opening of the first conversauT h J im ’ “ What about Malaghan’s bills ? I did not put a question to him about M Larn s estate at all. Defendant did not not say that “be did not know about the dividend, but had heard that Malaghan had not paid his bills, and he was going to Crofts (the accountant of the trustees) to inquire ; nor that “ what he had heard about Malaghan s bills came originally from M Larn, and that he wag going to inquire.” There might have been some words said by defendant before he spoke about the bills. When M'Larn and defendant came together to my store M'Larn did not say “I don’t care for Wenkheim or Malaghan so long as I got my money. The bills are not met, but I did not tell Wenkheim so.” M'Larn was to receive five shillings in the pound from ms estate. A dividend was expected from it, but my claim was so small that I did not disappointed- at one not being paid on the Monday previous to the first conversation.

Henry John Cope, settler at Wakitipu : About the 25th October I had a conversation with defendant. He said “ 1 suppose you’ve heard the news.” I said " I’ve both beard it and seen it in the newspapers.” He then said “ There’s nothing in it; the bills were dishonored” I replied, “I supuose they were given under some conditions that were not complied with. ”

, Henry Manders, land and estate agent and journalist, and member of the Provincial Council ; I had a conversation with defen* danfcin September last. He said, “ I hear Malaghan’s bills are dishonored again.” I said “I don’t think they have been presented ; hut 111 make inquiries. Mr Turton told me the title was all rigid, and that the kills wouid be paid.” Defendant said, “ I’m a.raid it’s true” Also, “I think Malaghans conduct should be shown up—dighonoring bills in trust estates.” I said I did not think it should be made a public matter .f. I saw defendant again, when he showed me the writ issued against him. When a case against one F i yer was being heard in the District Court, in November last, defendant said “ Mr Malaghant’s conduct in these estates is quite wrong. I’ll show him up.” Cross-examined : I will pledge myself to the accuracy of pay memory as to defendant using the words “dishonored again.” I took a note of the words in my memory. It is a good memory. I note a great many things m my memory, and write a great deal too. there had been a rumor three months previous that plaintiff had not met the first bills, but that was set at rest by its being shown that it was through the title to the estate not being correct.

Denis Powell, of Queenstown, auctioneer : Defendant on several occasions spoke to me ab"ut plaintiff and M‘Larn’s estate. He asked me once, in November, if I had heard any thing about any dishonored bills. I said “Iso, and he replied that I soon would from a friend of mine. Plaintiff is a friend oi mine. A conversation also took place between defendant and myself about the same time, in which defendant said “ Malaghan is a thief, a rogue, and a vagabond; he wants to rob the creditors of the estate (one Ho worth s) for his own benefit. ” Defendant has many a time used the same expressions to me with reference to plaintiff. Crossexamined : Mr M‘Ardle sold M‘Larn’s property. lam a creditor in the estate to a small extent. The occasion of either conversation with defendant was not on mv asking defendant to lend, me money, Iliad asked him to lend me money some twelve months before. He would have lent it me if 1 would pay him 15 per cent. He offered to lend me money ; I did not ask him for it. I was not aware in November that plaintiff had commenced this action; not until a month ago. If defendant was served with a writ on October 10, still I did not know anything about a pending action when 1 had the conversations with defendant in No-' vember. Whenever defendant came to my : office he made use of strong expressions ! about plaintiff; ever since he was refused 1 his commission as trustee in Howorth’s estate. I did not tell plaintiff of these words being used about him. I think the circumstance of my friend being called a “thief, &c ” of no moment. At least I don’t think so • I did tell plaintiff about it. It was that day, perhaps, or the next day, or some time P?f ha P 3 n ‘ ever -” In the main it is my belief that I reported all these occasions .to p aintiff. I ordered defendant out of my office on the last occasion of his using the expressions. I was never “pulled up l, a f the Pohce Court for using abusive language to defendant. I don’t think I was. About eight months ago I was not up for using threatening and abusive language jto defend* ant. 1 dou t remember. It might have been for threatening language. If there was such a case m the Court I might have been. 1 waa brought before the Court for using abusive language to defendant. Mr Smith argued that plaintiff must be non-suited. [Counsel said that as be was going to speii at some length his Honor would perhaps allow tne jury to retire, as they perhaps would not oare for the dry legal argument. Honor dismissed the jury till 2 p.m.l Counsel contended that defehdant, as a creditor in M‘Lam’s estate, had us?d the expressions complained of on privileged occasions, they being uttered to co-creditors in the same estate alone. (I#ft sitting 1 .) (|