SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4016, 10 January 1876, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SITTINGS. Monday, January 15. (Before Mr Justice Williams aud a Common Jury.) William Shaw v, David MTherson.— An action for slander; damages being laid Ll,ooo. Mr Mowatt appeared for plaintiff; Mr W. D. Stewart for defendant. Mr Mowatt said plaintiff sued defendant for that the latter in September last feloniously and maliciously spoke and published the following words concerning him: — “You are a thief; you stoic calves,” to plaintiff’s damage of LI,OOO. There were two issues before the jury : first, whether the words were spoken in a defamatory senese; second, what amount of damage plaintiff is entitled to. Plaintiff, who is a settler at Lake Waipori, and possessed of considerable property, said that on September 15 defendant passed by where witness aud one William Thompson were putting up a boundary fence between witness’s and defendant’s property. Defendant said, “ That is a good fence yon are putting up for us.” Witness replied, “ You go away ; don’t bother ns.” Defendant then said, “Yon are a thief; you stole calves from the Boundary Creek—yon and your sons. They were good calves, and there are more good ones there.” Witness had no conversations or quarrels with defendant immediately previous to this. Cross-ex-amined : Had known defendant and his brother for ten years, being neighbors. There had sometimes been cross-actions for trespass, but they had not been on unfriendly terms for eight years. Witness had been once bound over to keep the peace towards defendant, hut that was a long time since, aud witness thought it was ail over. There wore two other law cases to come on between them. Defendant nad once obtained L3O damages for trespass from witness, and generally sue-

cceded in bis cases—he and his brother were good swearers. Some years ago he had an action brought against him by one Scott, who recovered damages against him ; and had also had litigation with other neighbors. Never said to anyone that he would “ see the MThersons without a stool to sit on," but they had often said that they would get him out of the place. Witness never asked a German named Rudolf, a ditcher, what he would take to get rid of the MThersons. William Thomson, laborer, said he was working with plaintiff on September 15, when defendant came up to them and spoke as plaintiff had deposed. Cross-examined : Witness once left his watch at a Mrs Indoe’s, getting a loan of 5s on it; but he did not say to her or anyone that he would soon get it back, as he would he getting L2O from plaintiff out of this case. He told them that he had money coming from plaintiff for wages. j William Shaw, son of plaintiff, said that on September 16 he went to defendant’s house in consequence of hearing of the slander. He asked defendant, “ What about the calves V” _ Defendant replied, “You stole the calves; you arc a lot of thieves.” He said this in a serious manner, and also threw out a lot of similar remarks. Cross-examined ; Witness's brother and he went together to defendant’s house. They did not go to “hammer” defendant. There had been an unfriendly feeling between plaintiff and the MThersons for years past. Defendant once pointed a gun at plaintiff and witnessjand was going to shoot them. John Shaw another son of plaintiff, gave evidence corroborative of that of last witness.

Charles Anderson, laborer, said that in December last he heard defendant say in his house, before Mr C. R, Newton, that he could prove that plaintiff was a thief. David M Therson, defendant, said that on the day in question he was passing near where plaintiff was working, and the latter called him a “ scoundrel, ” and a“ —— Hieland crawler.” Plaintiff'then said something about witness stealing Ritchie’s lambs and cutting their ears off. Witness replied, “At all events I have never been put into the box for stealing,” referring to a charge once brought against plaintiff. Plaintiff then said he would “do for” witness, upon which witness replied that if he went to the Boundary Creek he would find a fine calf there. Plaintiff then picked up a turf and put it under his arm, imitating a bagpipe, till ho fell down exhausted. The next day plaintiff’s sons called at witness’s house an cl threatened to give him a hiding and put him in the creek. Plaintiff was in the habit of calliim witness abusive names whenever they meL Witness never used the words complained of in the information.

A verdict was found for plaintiff for one ’arthing. His Honor refused to allow costs.