SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 962, 26 July 1877, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

SITTINGS AT NISI PRIUS. Thursday, July 26. [Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams.] The Court re-opened at 10 a.m. BUCHANAN V JOBLIN. In tins case Mr Hugh Buchanan, chairman of the Little Eiver Eoad Board, was plaintiff, and Mr Gr. E. Joblin defendant. It was an action brought to recover damages for slander alleged to have been spoken by the defendant of the plaintiff on or about the 14th of December last. The alleged libel which formed the cause of action was contained in the following words alleged to have been spoken by the defendant of the plaintiff —viz, " That the chairman (meaning the plaintiff) was always up to his dirty work, taking the funds of the Eoad Board for his own purposes." Wherefore the plaintiff claims to recover from the defendant the sum of £IOOO as damages for the said slanderous words, as likely to injure materially the position of the plaintiff in the district. The defendant, in answer, pleaded general issue. Dr. Foster, witli him Mr James Struthers Williams, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Garrick for the defendant. Mr P. Cunningham was chosen foremon of the jury. The following were the issues sent to the jury:— ISSUES. 1. Did the defendant on or about the 14th day of December, 1876, falsely and maliciously speak and publish of the plaintiff the defamatory matter set forth in the second paragraph of the declaration ? 2. Did the defendant, on or about the said ' 14th day of December, 1876, falsely and maliciously speak and publish of the plaintiff the defamatory matter set forth in the third pai'agraph of the declaration ? 3. What sum of money (if any) is the plaintiff entitled to recover from the defendant in this action ? Dr. Foster, having open ed the case by reading the declaration, called evidence in support of his case. The witnesses for the plaintiff were Messrs Gilniour, G-ebbie, Murray, S. Nutt, and the plaintiff. The facts deposed to by them were that, on the occasion of the nomination of a member for the Little Eiver Eiding, of Akaroa County, the defendant was a candidate. His candidature was objected to by Mr G-ebbie's nominators, on the ground that the defendant had not paid his l-ates. After the nomination the parties were in the Beach Arms, when Joblin said " This is some more of the Little Eiver Eoad Board dirty work ; there are some dishonest men on the Board." A member of the Board, who was present at the time, asked the defendant whom he meant, and he replied. " Mr Buchanan, your chairman. He is always up to some dirty work, using the funds of the Board for his own purposes." One of the witnesses said "That is a serious charge, unless you can substantiate it," and defendant replied, " I can prove it." This constituted the slander on which the present action is brought. At the close of plaintiff's case, Mr G-arrick moved for a nonsuit on the ground that the plaintiff had not proved the libel charged in the declaration. Dr Foster declined to accept a nonsuit and asked for leave to amend the declaration. His Honor asked the plaintiff to write out the proposed amendment to the third count of the declaration. Mr Garrick submitted that this was substantially an addition to the libel already charged in the declaration. His learned friend had now, when he moved for a nonsuit, substituted another libel for the one charged in the declaration. He submitted that the principle of amendment, though of course in the discretion of the Court, could be carried too far. His Honor thought that Dr Foster was entitled to amend. It was not a substitution of a different cause of action but the same libel under a different phase. He would allow the amendment, striking out a few words in it. On the application of Mr Garrick His Honor gave leave to reserve the point of nonsuit. Mr Garrick then opened the case for the defence, and called Mr Franks, the landlord of the Beach Arms, who gave evidence as to what took place in his house on the occasion referred to. His evidence went to prove that Joblin said that the Board were dishonest, more particularly the chairman. The defendant was examined and gave liis version of the affair at Frank's Hotel. He said that the Eoad Board were meun enough for anything ; and that it was absolutely dishonest his being objected to on the ground oi bis not boring paid his yaies. This was after lie had been told that his nominatiou had been objected to. When the witness said it Mr oue of the members of the Board, said that he (witness) knew ao dishonesty on the part of members of the Eoad Board. Witness replied if falsehood constituted dishonesty, he did —their chairman. The witness denied having used the words imputed to him in the declaration. Ho recollected one of the witnesse* (Mr Murxsy) that it was *

serious charge to bring against a gentleman without substantiating it. To this the witness made no reply. This closed the defendant's case. Mr G-arrick submitted that on the first count of the plaintiff's declaration there was no cause of action. He submitted that there was no libel. The dishonesty alleged simply referred to the members and chairman of the Road Board, and unless the evidence led showed that the words had been used of the plaintiff as such chairman there was no libel. His Honor said he would direct the jury that unless they were satisfied that dishonesty was charged against the plaintiff as chairman of the Road Board they would not be able to bring in a verdict for the plaintiff on the first issue. Mr G-arrick then proceeded to address the jury for the defendant. Dr. Foster, having replied, his Honor summed up. The jury, after some deliberation, returned a verdict on the issues as follows :—No 1— Yes. No. 2—No. No. 3— £2 2s. Verdict entered for plaintiff for two guineas. His Honor declined to certify that the case was one for a special jury. A common jury would have been quite as competent to try the case as a special one. The Court then adjourned until 10 a.m. on Monday next. ___