SUPREME COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2083, 18 May 1907, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

HALF-YEARLY SITTINGS. CIVIL LIST. Tlio Supremo Court resumed _ its Gisborne sittings yesterday morning, whon tho civil business was proceedod with. ALLEGED LIBEL.

Tho hearing of tho ease of alleged libel against William Atwill Spurred brought by C. F. Lewis}, Government valuer, was continued. For tho dofenco, Mr. 801 l called Dofonilant, who deposed that he was a farmer in tho district of tho Waimata Road Board. The area of his property was £>9B acres, and he had had it for 18 or 19. 'in on tl ip. Previous to this was a schoolmaster. Sketch (produced) showed four gates within a mile.

His Honor said that unless malice was suggested, it was not necessary to go into the question of klib gates. This Court was not deciding the question as to who was right or wrong in the gate discussion. Continuing, witness said tho motion to restore the gates was moved by Strachan. Spoke to that motion lor some little time. Referred to tho value of his own propej't|y. Said lie was assessed at L38.‘31 ! , and must he not have a road ? Strajehan «ajd> “Are you assessed at L3Bol ?” Witness said “1. es. It is nearly LG 10s per acre. Strachan replied, 11 V h.. did you not manage to get it valued Invar?” W'iness bent towards him and said, “I didn’t cart the valuer around to tickle his fancy to get my valuation lowered.” Did not use the word “palm” ; said “faiicy.” It was in answer to Straehanjj query. Had only met Mr. Lewis ,on one occasion. Knew nothing of him or his business. At an interview Lewis agreed to reduce tho valuation. Hail no feeling of any - kind against Lewis.

Mr. Bell intended to ask witness whether he had any intention of making an imputation to the disadvantage of Mr. Lewis. Mr Stock objected. . . His Honor said the question was permissible if it could be shown that no malice was intended. Witness replied “No” to the question. It was simply a repartee to Strachan to keep him quiet to allow witness to give his reasons why the Board should not replace the gates. 'His Honor said the question of the words “like Mr. Strachan” could be left to the jury. Witness said he did not use the words. By Mr. Stock: Had a farm at Wliarekopae. Did not say at the meeting that ho paid more rates than any of the members, but he said lie paid more in proportion.' Referred to no one when he paid ‘ cart the valuer round.” Had met Mr. Lewis before. Did not see Lewis and Strachan at his house. away at the time, and was not told about it. Meant repartee by the words in question. Had no special man’s name in his mind when he spoke.- Meant nothing whatever. Knew that Lewis was the valuer tor the district. Was not certain if lie was the valuer or Mr. Couffcts, 1 . Did not know if Lewis valued his property. Admitted that ho got Lewis to reduce the valuation. Did not tickle his own palm when m the discussion. Did not address the words to Mr. Strachan; they were addressed to the Board. He turned round and bent towards Strachan, the previous speaker, when he used tiie " °Joliii Marshall, slieepfarmer at Waimata, said he was not a member of the Road Board. Was not present at the meeting of the 4tli March, but was at the meeting or the 12th April. Remembered Spnrrell making a statement when the minutes were confirmed, and bjuurell objected to the word “palm. Mr. De Latour objected that what Spin-roll said on this occasion was not evidence. Mr. Bell said that Spurred objected at the first opportunity. , His Honor said the evidence was not admissible. Mr. Bell, addressing His Honor, said that the words did not-necessar-ily bear a defamatory meaning. He said that if a person asked why he did not get liis valuation powered the natural reply would be that it would oo dishonest. He quoted authority to show that where others put an interpretation on the words, tile plaintiff was not entitled to judgment, flic doctrine which plaintiff tried to maintain was that if they could get some persons not favorably disposed to defendant to put a similar meaning on the words they would be entitled to claim. Addressing the jury, counsel said the question for them to decide was whether the words were an imputation on plaintiff. There was not the slightest imputation on the plaintiff. Defendant never said that Lewis was guilty of bribery. Ai the words stood it was simply a statement of what Spurred did not do. If they were taken without the context they looked suggestive. The clerk had no tickets on air. Spurred, and the other members, except the chairman, seemed hostile to delandant. Strachan was the real mover in the matter, and no doubt took Lewis straight off to his solicitor. What Spurred said was perfectly fair. He could put forward his reason for objecting to the motion legitimately; the words were perfectly relevant to the argument. It was Strachan who was making the sinister implication. Probably the latter heard that Spurrell’s valuation had been reduced. Spun-ell had no ill-feeling towards Lewis. It was. not reasonable to impute to the words used the offensive meaning. They simply meant wliat they said, that lie could not get his valuation reduced beoause he was ail holiest man. Otherwise anybody could claim damages against anyone who spoke in a sneering tone, and who was thought to convey ail imputation. The words meant that he and the valuer were honest. The addition of the words “like JMr. Stijachan,” which the prosecution tried to establish, would be an imputation on Mr. Strachan and Mr. Lewis. It was a case of being misunderstood!. He said that Mr. Lewis, being a reasonable and sensible person, should not be hurt at the babble of the Road Board meeting. Defendant had no intention to impute any dishonesty to Mr. Lowis, and the words conveyed no such meaning. Mr. DeLautour said that aJaise which contained attacks against the opposing counsel beforehand, was not very good. He did not believe Spurreli had the slightest desire to impute any bribery to Lewis, whose character was unassailable. The point was not what Spurreli {intended to say or imply, but what ho \realty did say. If he did the damage, ho was responsible and punishable. If he did not know to say it made the matter worse. A man’s character should not be at the mercy of the uncontrolled temper of such pe/rsons. Lewis’s character and future was in the hands of the jury. They were not wishing vindictive damages, but touching the pockets was the only way of teaching men with unbridled tongues. It was suggested that the jury give the verdict for the defendant, because in some way the statement was provoked by aggravating remarks. He could not see how that could excuse, lit was for the jury to protect innocent people from people who would not control their tongues and tempers. Assuming Spurrell’s absence of motive, lie should have frankly apologised to Lewis for his heated words; but instead of this he instructs his solicitor that he did not know Mr. Lewis and opposing counsel suggested that the members of the Board really brought the action. A perfectly conscientious man would go out of his way to make ltqnuiation, but only aggravation was given. The words used were absolutely defamatory of the plaintiff. It may be true that they were also defamatory of Mr. Strachan, but he had his remedy. It was suggested that Strachan inspired the action. There was an entire lack of evidence of this. Nothing was more reasonable than that Strachan should at once inform Lewis that doubtful words were used. He, submitted that the words were defamatory, and that if the jury were of the same opinion t-liey should award considerable damages. His Honor said that defamatory libel was alwavs actionable unless privileged. If “the words were spoken as alleged they were spoken with respect to Mr. Lewis as Gove>-nmcnt Valuer. The first question was whether the words in question wore uttered. There were some slight differences in the evidence of the; 'witnesses, but those for plaintiff twerte practically agreed. Against tjiis was only the evidence of defendant, who admits using the words with the substitution of “fancy” for “palm.” That point was for the jury to decide. Oil tlie one side there was the evidence for plaintiff, which was given in a clear, definite manner.; On tlie other hand defendant was speaking heatedly. The most serious issue of the question was whether the imputation was made that the valuer was bribed. Defendant stated that he did not use the worlds to Lewis, but it was an abstract proposition. At the Road Board meeting an attempt was made to introduce a motion without notice, and

defendant violently and c * iel "Soticntl y resented this. Defendant admitted that it was in tliur connection, th|t the words wore used. Ho JUBtihei his conduct by stating h«VW va i U od tho largest landowners, and va ueu to the full value. The jury was jus tificd in assuming that Spurred s ob servation was made in reply “J I ,' chan, when lie asked why defendant did not get his valuation reduced, it was suggested that Spurred used the 'iirst words that occurred to him to throw at Strachan. The man .might have been sore about tho high valuation, and might have entertained suspicions. Speaking of pr* v ' His Honor said it was clea.r it could not apply to malicious statements. Tho jury must decide whether the word “fancy” was used or palm. Tho word “fancy would not be | actionable. The damages, f " . should be fixed without reference, to tho amount claimed. the could if they thought necessary, punish' the defendant by punitive damages, but neither this nor vmdictP damages were asked lor anJ The jury retired at 1.10 P- m -> )m verdict was announced at 4.0

P The issues lor the jury’s decision "Tpid the defendant utter the words alleged in the statement? Yes. 2. Wore the words defamatory o the plaintiff? Yes. ~ 3. Did the words moan that tl _ plaintiff has accepted a Indie or bribes given to him by. Malcolm Ho vil Straclian, with a view to indue the plaintiff to make all improper valuation of his property under the Government Valuation of Land A£ti 1896, and that the plaintiff was guilty of corruption and misconduc in his said office with respect to the valuaton so made by him? hlo. 4 Do the words reasonably beai a meaning defamatory to the plaintiff, and were they so understood . xei . 5 Did the defendant in using the words intend to defame the plaintiff. N 6. What damages (if any) is the plaintiff entitled to recover from the defendant? No damages. His Honor took exception to the verdict which was contradictory. He said'lie should have been icit in his explanation to the jury n regard to the damages. _ they weie assailing the character or the plaintiff when they- brought in a. verdict to" the effect that the words in question were used, that they were defamatory and were undeistood as such and brought in no damages. Moderate damages should have beei , 11S Th S e e foreman stated that they conthe w* used f that His Honor told them that plaintiff was not demanding punitive damages apart from injuries sustained. words His Honor said that if the v o ™- were defamatory, plaintiff was entitled to damages—he did not waive money but a i reasonable compensation should he allotted Iu to Mr Bell, His Honor said, if plgintnt - character was lowered he was justified in bringing this action. there wane suggestion that plaintiff’s character was not a good one, and the jury ought to find damages. He could not allow that verdict to stand, rt was equivalent to saying - tion should have been brought. .If that were the Sase they could gne nominal damages. As it stood, X - pie could say in the future that in iurious words had been used and plaintiff had rcceiced no damages. The jury did not mean that Mr. Lewis had no character to lower or to make any imputation against hmu The .jury then retired, and when they returned announced thes fact that they assessed damages at £.20. Mr Bell said he would like to bring before His Honor a question bearing on the second issue. His Honor said lie agreed that there was particular difficulty arising out of the question of privilege. Jhe present was a good opportunity to. the parties, after having had the matter thoroughly thrashed out in open Court, to meet and endeavor to amicably arrange the matter from a calm point of view. The Court then adjourned till 10 o’clock the -following morning. APPEAL.

Slieatlier and others (Mr. F. W. Nolan) appealed against the. Magistrate’s decision in a bushfalling contract against J. E. Foster (Mr Chrisp). The claim was for 7/ acres of hush felled by appellants,.. the survey of the .urea was in dispute. Mr. Nolan stated that the appeal was on the facts only. A second, survey had been made, but the defence was that this was ho-t the proper survey. The surveyor’s methods were objected to while he was doing it, by a man who went round with him. His Honor asked why was there any objection to the surveyor it lie was engaged by consent. Mr. Nolan said that he was objected to before commencing. J liey did not challenge his competency but his manner of doing the work. His Honor held that the surveyor was an arbitrator to decide on the area from which the amount should be paid. The object of the survey was to prevent- an appeal such as had happened. . . ... The appeal was dismissed, witii t 7s costs. CH ,\MBERS. In Chambers yesterday afternoon His Honor granted probate m the following applications Henry V illoughby (Mr. Chrisp); Eleanor Evans (Mr. Blair), George S. Anderson, and •John Alfred Harding (Mr. Nolan). Probate in the last instance was to Messrs. F. Hall and W. 0. Skeot. In the matter of the will of Will. Coolier, deceased (Mr. Stock), motion to fix trustees’ commission. This matter was referred to the Magistrate for report. A number of other matters were adjourned. - •

Press AssociationAVELLINGTON, yesterday. At the Supreme Court Elizabeth Buckmaster, alias Sylvester, charged with theft, was found guilty of receiving . stolen property. She was committed to the Salvation Army Home and ordered to appear for sentence when called upon. WELLINGTON, last night, . At the Supreme Court to-day, Har--old Burridge, aged 19, was found guilty of indecent assault near Greytown, the jury strongly recommending him to lvtcrcy. Prisoner was remanded till Monday. Richard Joseph Hicks and William Frederick Henderson were found guilty on a charge of attempting to procure mis carriage.