Untitled

Grey River Argus, Volume XII, Issue 1307, 7 October 1872, Page 2

MACASSEY V. WARD AND AJfQT^ERi In this case his Honor Judge Qresson, delivered judgment as follows, on last:— "' •'-■ "'■ :"; ' ' : ~'-'-'-"i'- ''■■; ■ ;' This wa3 an application by the plaintiff for leave to administer certam interrogatories under section 19 of the Court Practice and ProcedureAnVsnaraenV Act, 1 866. " The action wasfbr an alleged libel 'flbntain'edi in the : Timam JEtemld newspaper pf the 17th May last, -and it seeks to recover damages, from the defen-. dant, Charles Dudley Robert Ward, as the author, and the defendant Herbert Belfield, as the printer and publisher of the said alleged libel. Upon the. hearing of the motion, counsel for the plaintiff abandoned all the interrogations except* the first three, the avowed object of which was to show that the defendant Ward, was the author of tnet alleged libel, ; sides avowing tfyat such is the object, t.bo plaintiff by his affidavit states that witho^tit the evidence which ho believes the answers, to these interrogatories will pror cure, it would be unsafe for him to proceed #0 triaK That he believes he wjli derive material benefit in the cau.se frpoj the discovery wju'efy lie seeks by the interrogatories. That the exhibition of thera, is proposed in good faith, and solely to ; enable him to establish the authorship of the article by the defendant Ward. That he has a good cause of action o,n the merits. That the action ia brouo[hi iplejy for the vindication of his ggfwg axA character; and that ft |he ; aps^ei* \ti the interrogatories do not implicate the de, fendant Ward in the authorship tif tkf ; deiamatory article, 'he will djwwtihfte the action ngatost him and pay his costs pf §mt. { The application was resulted an

being one of a merely fishing character, and further as tending to criminate the defendant Belfiold, and in support of .this latter ground of objection an affidavit by him w|s used, in which he states that every several one of the said interrogatoriernWa. tendency to criminate him in respect 'of publishing, ,or conspiring to publish the alleged libel. It has been laid downs jrepeatedly in the cases which' haye > befeadecided upon the subject that the J\idge at Chambers is to nse his discretion as to what interrogatories shall be al|owed to be administered according to the special circumstances of each case, and the, general rnle by which he is to be governed, appears to be that questions are to be allowed which are asked bona fide and are material to the case of the interrogating party (M *Fadcen v. Mayor of Liverpool, 3 L.R. Ex. 279 ; Truman v. Jenkins, 09 L. J. Ex. 258.) In Osborn v. London Jpock Co., 10 Ech. 698, the Court held it s 6be no answer to a rule under the analogous section of the Common Law Procedure > Act, that the questions proposed might tend to criminate the party sought to be interrogated, as the objection must come from the party himself when 'js worn ; and this case was cited with approval, and acted upon in Bartlett v. Lewis, 12 C.8., N.S. 249. It would Mem, therefore, that according to the

uthorities, the interrogatories might be put, eveu.if the tendency was to criminate the parly interrogated, leaving it to such party to obieot after order made. But I do not see hqir theso interrogatories can tend to nd4i.tp the reapouaibiUty which the defendant Belfield has, already incurred by complying witbJ the "Printers and Newspapers Act. 1868J' Ejection 12, at least so far as "Wgara'i fhe present action, and he is protected by aection, 18 of the last-mentioned Act from the discovery being used for any purpose in any other proceeding. Nor is the defendant Belfield's statement that the discovery sought has a tendency to criminate him to be accepted without inquiry. 1 The Court mußt see from the circumstances of the case, and tho nature of the evidence which the witness is callocLtQgive, that there is reasonable ground to 1 apprehend danger to the witness from his being compelled to answer, atid if the Judge be unable to see that there is ground for such apprehension, he is bound to insist on his answerin?. The Queen v. Boyea r Q. 8.,, 301. It does not appear to me that the objection that the interrogations are of a fishing character can be sustained. The object of the analogous enactment was stated by Lord Campbell, to obviate the necessity of commencing a fresh suit in equity for the purpose of obtaining discovery in aid ; of an action at law, by enabling a party to enquire into all that m material to his own case, though it should be in common with that of his adveraary, provided the enquiry do not relate to what is exclusively the case of his ' adversary—Whately V. Crowtber 5 El. and 8., 709. These interrogations seem to come within the rule laid down in the foregoing case. Order made. Costs to be costs iv the cause.