Claim for Damages.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIV, Issue 1941, 24 November 1906, Page 3

Claim for Damages.

At the District Court at Palmerston North, Frederick Pirani, of Feildiog, sued Adam Burges, of Palmerston, for the sum of £IOO and costs, £5 17s, alleging that he had Buffered damage from the defendant on Ootober 25th last, falsely and maliciously speaking and publishing of him in relation to his business of a newspaper proprietor, oertain words. Frederick Pirani, editor aud part proptietor of the Feildiog Star, said that the action had been started in oonsequence of some statement made to him by Mr T. Hastings. Cross-examined : Mr Hastings was not yet a partner in tho paper, but would bo Hastings said he remembered Ootober 26th last wall, as on it he had an interview with Me Barge 3 io hia yard. He introduced himself as a representative of the Feilding Star, and asked for a special Show advertisement for tho paper. Ho explained to him the advantages of advertising in the Star, when Burges turned round and asked if it was " Pirani’s paper. Witness replied in the affirmative. BurfTo3 then, witness alleged, enquired, ”Do you woili for that b Pirani ? ’ Witness said that ho was one of the proprietors of tho ooncern. Borg : .s asked if he had any money in tho huiness, and was answered yes. Defoodant then, it was alleged, naid 11 1 f>m sorry for you; you v?ill never Bee any of it again. That b-“~ Pirani ia no good. Ho never paid Buick his abate out of tho Standard.” This ocnvoraatioc took place close to two of defendant’s employees, who oould have heard it easily. Wimoss fuithor alleged that Burgos alleged that the Star was no good, neither was Pirani. Witness wanted , to chow him a copy of tho paper, but he

refused to see ifc. Cross-examined: Ho had always looked upon Burges as a decent citizen. In speaking to him he did not say that the Star was the best paper on the coast, and certainly did not compare it with the Advocate. It was true and it was not true that ho was part proprietor in the Star. A deed of partnership had been

drawn up, dui, was um .yy^ His Honour said he did not see what this had to do with the case. Mr Innes said that if the witness was a partner in the business there could havo been no publication of tho words. Mr Garty said his client was not claim* in" on tho words used respecting the Continuing, witness said that at the time he had taken no exception to Burges’ remarks beyond saying that it was foolish to talk that way. Burgess had told witness he could take him to a dozen people in the town who could prove what was said in respect to the Standard. The words contained in the claim were those alleged to have been used by Burges. Me lunes submitied ibai judgment must g , for defendant. Regarding the words i. Pirsni's no use,” he argued that they were not actionable unless plaintiff could show ho bad sufiored Bpcoial damage, i Burgas had also a perfeot right to discuss She merits of the paper he was asked to ’ * advertise iu. Oonneel dwelt on tho point

at longth, arguing that tho Court must endeavor to ascertain tho sonso in which tho words woro used. Tho roforonoo (o Bulok and tho Standard also, did not moan the sarno as sot ont infjtho olnim, that if, that tho formor was ohoatod. Counsel cited authorities in support of his oontontion. Aftor hearing ovidonoo for the dofouco and addrossos of oounsol, his Honor reserved his decision.