Wanganui Supreme Court.

Feilding Star, Volume XVII, Issue 90, 12 October 1895, Page 2

Wanganui Supreme Court.

Thursday, October 10th, 1895. (Before His Honor the Chief Justice). BBOWNK V. BAKES. Mr Jeliicoe for plaintiff, Mr Fitsherbert for defendant. In opening the case for the plaintiff, Mr Jeliicoe said that his client was a young man, who, by energy and perseverance and the possession of an irreproachable character, had acquired distinction amongst his neighbours and now held several public appointments. The plaintiff and defendant were cotrustees of Mr Browne's mother's will, and defendant was a man who lived closely to himself. He was of a vindictive and jealous disposition, the causes > for which would be shown. Prior to the old lady's death tiie defendant exhibited a desire to obtain the management of Mrs Browne's affairs, and also endeavoured to obtain a position as power of attorney. The terms of the will were apparently not considered favorable to Mr Baker, and from that date to the . present time he had on every possible occasion attacked the character of bis client. He could prove that not only had he attacked plaintiff's character, • but had endeavored by every means he could devise to injure Mr Browne not only with his neighbors but in his private life. In July he accused plaintiff of stealing a number of "sheep, and certain anonymous letters .were also written, which he (Mr Jeliicoe) thought he would be able to prove were written by defendant. They were sent to a number of settlers in the Pohangina district. Whoever wrote those letters was a mean contemptible coward, because he dared not pen his signature. The plaintiff was obliged tooomeinto Court, even though he was compelled to/ _ bring a number of his relatives into ' Court, in order that he might vindicate his character. An opportunity had been given Mr Baker to apologise, hot he had not done so 1 On the 23rd day of Jnly, 4805, at Colyton, the defendant falsely and ~ maliciously spoke and published of the' '- plaintiff the words following concerning ' the plaintiff : "He has stolen 400 of my sheep from the Harbor Board Block." 2 On or about the 24th day of July. 1895, at Feilding, the defendant pub, lished in a letter addressed to Mr A. WWagstaff, Pohangina, the following words concerning plaintiff :— " Sir,— As " there is much sheep stealing going on inthe district I think it my duty to warn you of J. G. Browne, as I and many others know for certain that he has stolen sheep in the Harbor Board Block and surrounding district so sh_t if yon should happen to lose any, yon may have a good idea where to look for them.' I • have been told that the police are on bis track, but as they cannot -be every- „ where it is as well for every man to ' look after himself and warn his neighbours.—Yours, etc.', Justice;" 3 The pubHcation was false and malicious. 4 In consequence of these defamatory statements the plaintiff had suffered damage in his reputation. 5 Plaintiff claims £1000 damages. Albert Anderson, sworn, said-he lived on the Harbour Board Block, and- had been there two years. Both plaintiff and defendant were cousins of witness. Had frequently visited :Mr Baker's house, and on the. 28rd was there to spend the evening^ * Reference was made to a meeting that _ had taken place about a will, and then Baker accused Browne of taking sheep ■■ • from the Harbour Board Block -and 1 driving them to the Pohangina. The 1 statement was made in the presence of , one of Mr Baker's hands named Williams. Defendant had been on bad terms ' with plaintiff for some considerable time. In August received a letter from Mrs ' ' Bake_, inviting Witness to tea. . Went 1 after tea and saw Mr and MnKßaker ' and the man Williams. Ww informed ( by Mr Baker that -he had reoeived a letter from Mr Jeliicoe calling' on him - to apologise for what had bedh said. Mr ' Baker admitted' he. was wrong, but could [ trust Williams, but replied he could 1 not trust anybody, and that they,, put it 1 , 1 down as personal spite, ac tibey knew he t, 1 was trying to injure Mr Browne. 7 TolA ' | Mr Baker things looked very bad against 1 him, as he was in Feilding when the ' summons letters were posted. 1 Witness was examined at consider--1 able length by Mr Fitzherbert. ' ' ' Mrs £. Browne, wife of B. Browne, and sister-in-law to plaintiff and Mr Baker, ' gave evidence as to being at Mr Baker's '. house in July, when Mr Baker said that ; Mr J. Browne had robbed bis mother : for years whilst managing her place, 1 and at last the scales fell from his ' mother's eyes, and she went to Mr Baker with her troubles and asked him to go and manage the place. , Mr Baker > said he could not go while Mr J. Browne was there. When he, (Mr Baker), took 1 the place over -Mrs Browne { sifd-it^ was thoroughly sub-divided, as she had bought the wire and. staples, and defendant accused plaintiff bf taking them. He also said he believed he was quite capable of doing that, and worse, as he ' (plaintiff) was 'villain' enough to do anything. Defendant also accused plaintiff of stealing the sheep, and treating his mother vilely. Albert Finnis, farmer, living at the Harbour Board Block, had known' Mr Baker for the last two years, and had assisted him to mnster. In July last, Mr Baker told witness he had lost several hundred sheep, and accused Mr J. Brown of taking them. Did -not be- > lieve be lost that number, but some may have died. Defendant also accused Brown of stealing wire belonging to his mother, and said he was a scamp and a villain. -Knew Mr Baker's hand writing, and three anonymous letters (produoed) in his Opinion were in Mr Baker's hand writing. Cross-examined by Mr Fitsberbert— " Did not profess to be an expert in hand r writing. On one occasion had heard Mr Baker say he missed 80 or 40 sheep. Was half-brother of the Brown's, and Anderson was in his employ occasionally. > •»-*-♦- v-^ Mrs Alice Finnis, wife of the last witness, gave evidence similar to previous witnesses as to Mr Baker referring in a disparaging manner to Mr Brown and accusing him or various' things. Was well acquainted with Mr Baker's .hand writing and believed the anonymous letters were in his. There shad been an attempt to disguise the hahd-vrritmg, but unsuccessful. Had been head mi* tress in a school : had ten years' experience and had seen a good deal of hand writing/ ' - 1' Cross-examined by Mr Fitsherbert— The anonymous letters were very much ' like the hand writing- of defendant, wit* ness had written, but had, never seen him write. There was bad -feeling between the plaintiff and defendant. A. £. Wagstaff, settler at Pohangina, said the plaintiff in the case was one of the loading settlers in the Pohangina district and a Justice^of the Peace. Had < received an anonymohs letter. '- , * Cross-examined by Mr f-taherbert— Received the letter in his i private letter box, and handed it at once to Mr Brown. E. Harrison gave evidence similar to Mr Wagstaff. . After argument as to the. admissibility of a certain letter whioh |His Honor ruled was hot admisisible; -Mr JeUiooe announced that the plaintiff's ease was concluded. _ ■.«** x I Mr; Fitsherbert, in opening the. case for the defence, said— Gentlemen of the jury, you have heard a certain ?defamatory letter read. My friend says it is a cowardly letter, the letter pi a coward, and I endorse every word th»t be haa

said. If any stronger language of mine could be applied, I should not think it too strong to describe the character of that letter. Any man who woula write a letter of that kind, or a series of letters, and have them spread broadcast through the district to the detriment of another, must be considered a despicable character. That is all I have to say about that. Our answer to it is simple. The defendant neither wrote published, nor knew anything about it. The plaintiff and defendant bad been on bad terms, and there was considerable feeling between them. Mr Fitzherbert then commented on the fact of his friend not calling Williams to give evidence as to the conversation that took place. The conversation about Brown began in consequence of some very strong language used by Anderson. Certain remarks were made but nothing like so strong as he was charged with using. As to the hand writing of the letters, he thought the jury would have no difficulty in finding that the hand-writing of Mr Brown and that contained in the letter was totally different. He thought it very discreditable that Mr Baker should have been dragged into Court in order to clear the plaintiff of the aspersions made against him, as Mr Baker had nothing whatever to do with this foully libellous letter. The defendant was put through a rigid cross-examination.

(Pee Press Association.) Wanganui, October 11. After plaintiff's case was finished and while defendant was being cross-ex-amined, both council wished to consult His Honor privately. The result of the consultation was that plaintiff's council said that in face of the evidence given by his client he did not feel it his duty to press for a verdict and had arranged a settlement of the terms of which are as follows :— Defendant hereby withdraws all imputations heietofore made by him against tbe plain tin and expresses bis deep regret for making them. He- now wholly admits that all the imputations were and are untrue and made without foundation. Defendant consents to a verdict for plaintiff for j£loo and j£"2s agreed costs. Judgment to be entered for the foregoing unless the amount is paid within a month.