SUPREME COURT.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume I, Issue 10, 2 July 1887, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

(Before Chief Justice Sir James Prendergast. FRIDAY. CIVIL BUSINESS. Baldwin v. Cmis? & Mtlia. Mb Rates appeared for the, plaintiff,.and Mr DeLautottr with Mr Chrisp for the defendants. ; : The following Jury was sworn W. Morice, A. Kempthorne, J. W. Bilham and F. Morgan. Mr Kempthorne was chosen foreman, This was an action for £5OO damages for libel. The libel complained Mr Hees opened the case, and yaitoa ohn Baldly in, who deposed he wap the plaintiff. Had eequ (he paper (produced) before, It was dlttbd Nov. 24, and contained statements about him. [Article read.) Had attempted to <lo all he possibly could to stop the harbor works since he had seen how the money was being squandered. He considered the money was being squandered. He commenced the Harbor Board action Himself I On ■ one occasion he believed he had attached his name to a petition to the Town Clerk about the ■ roll being informal. There was no case. I Others signed the same petition, The object I was to purge the roll of what they considered ; to be a fault. Agents were on the roll to re- : present absentees. This he had objected to. : He was a ratepayer. The .Harbor Board . action was his own. All that hid been said in the paper about tpat action was falae. He . had had a glass or tito during the day. • Was not drunk at the meeting, His paper ; came out next day. Mr Rees proceeded to produce other articles i in papers ot other dates containing aspei stone > on the plaintiff, and Mr DeLautour objected. Mr Bees quoted authorities to show that he had a right to produce such evidence, and 1 His Honor Said he did nbt see,how .it could be kept out if relating to the libel complained of. At this stage Mr Greenwood, Registrar of the Supreme Court, was called to produce the registration of the Herald newspaper. J. Baldwin continued: There was a paragradh in the paper of Jan. 19, 1887, relative to wielding a revolver. Mr DeLautour objected to the evidence as t being outside the present action. His Honor said he could not see that the paragraph referred to the pfestat alleged t libel. After further argument by Mr Rees the evidence was admitted. His Honor said he would take a note of Mr DeLautour’s objections. Of course there was inconvenience about it, as tho defendants might want to prove the truth of the second alleged libel. t Mr DeLautour said that was the trouble. I The very paragraph put in had reference to ) the criminal libel suit on Which they had brought witnesses frem Christchurch and elsewhere. It would be very awkward to have to bring those witnesses, even if they had not gone home. Examination continued: He had ascertained that money had not been spent in accordance with law. At least he believed , so. He had been told by the Board’s officers that interest had been paid out of principal. He believed that the account current had been paid out of the loan account. Had also > found that the plant and cement had been

bought illegally, inasmuch that tenders had not been called for. [Papers of December

4th with reference to the costs of the suit put in.] To Mr DeLautour; He said “ hear, hear ”

to something Mr Matthewsou had said at the Board's meeting. Attended as a ratepayer and reporter. Could not say what he made the expression on. Thought he might be successful in the action. It was possible he did not consider where he was to get the ex-

penses from if he lost the action. Had always paid his way. Had no property except “ health, brains and character.” The print-

ing plant was not his own, and the furniture was made over to his wife by bill of sale for wages due—over £5O, Thought if he could stop the Board squandering the money he

would be doing a good action to the ratepayers, and he never thought how he was to pay, even if he had to seek refuge in the

Bankruptcy Act. Paid the preliminary costs himself. On November 23 the writs were served on the members of the Board.

Remembered serving one writ on one of the Board’s members. Remembered his solicitor sending a letter to the Board asking that a special case be stated to avoid litigation. Knew nothing about the letter produced.

Had been ordered to find security in the Harbor Board case, but had not done so. Had been advised that the time had not gone by. His wife was lessee of the paper. Had divested himself of all interest in it, but long before the Board action. Was not intoxicated at the Harbor Board meeting. Was not a “ little bit mellow " even. A man on a race day might be called “ fresh," on another day drunk.

Re-examined by Mr Rees: Never was asked by any person to commence the action. His opinion was that the way the money was being expended on the Harbour works was the ruination of the place. Suggested to Mr Brassey that some action should be taken in the Harbour Board case.

T. W, McDougall, solicitor, deposed the affidavit of registration was taken before him. Could not say whether Messrs Ohrisp and Muir were proprietors of the Herald.

H. j. Brown deposed as to the signatures to the affidavits of regirtration. To Mr DeLautor i He would certainly say the plaintiff was drunk at the meeting of the Harbour Board when the writs were served. T. J. Dickson deposed: Remembered meeting of the Harbour Board when the plaintiff said "hear, hear." Remembered the writs being served. The meeting was not disturbed in any way, nor were they interrupted in any disgraceful manner. Plaintiff was simply called to order by the Chairman. [The witness then gave evidence as to Harbour Board matters. From the position where he sat he could not see Mr. Baldwin, He thought it strange that anyone should call out “ hear, hear." Saw plaintiff afterwards —about hali-an-hour—he was not then drunk. Mr Matthewson deposed : Saw Baldwin at the Harbour Board meeting. He (Baldwin) had had a glass of liquor, but was not drunk. He did not interrupt the meeting. He handed a writ across the table to Mr Sunderland. [The rest of the evidence was relative to the Harbour works.) Thomas Smith : Was present at a meeting of the Harbour Board when the writs were served. Baldwin was sober. He might have had one or two glasses ; but he was sober. Only heard Baldwin say “ hear, hear,” Did not make any other sign of approval or disapproval. S. M. Wilson deposed: Was present at a portion of the meeting. Saw Baldwin who was not drunk. Might have had a glass or two, but could conduct his business. Witness was there about five minutes.

George Maher said he was present at the meeting and saw Baldwin. Was not drunk , he might have had one or two liquors. Heard him say “ hear hear,” and heard the Chairman call him to order. To Mr DeLautour; Baldwin was under tho influence of drink. Knew from the smell, and from plaintiff’s manner. Mr DeLautour briefly opened the defence, stating that justification would be the plea for the production of the article and paragraph referred to.

Mr J. Rourke gave evidence as to the plaintiff's qualifications on the Burgess Roll, also as to the receipt of a letter by the Board, asking that a special be stated. He added that the plaintiff, when the meeting of the Board commenced, “ floundered ” across to the table and pushed a document across to Mr G. L. Sunderland. He (Baldwin) then sat down and “ snorted ” —blew through his nose, triumphantly. (Laughter). During the proceedings the plaintiff said “ hear, hear, well done,” or something to that effect. The Board went into Committee, and the Chairman had to ask plaintiff to leave. Plaintiff’s conduct was “ excentric,” and he witness) would put it down to liquor as doing the cause of the proceedings.

The witness was cross examined by Mr Rees relative to the Harbor Board’s actions. W. H. Tucker gave evidence as to the plaintiff occupying a tenement of his in May, 1886. He could not say what rates Baldwin had paid. A. Graham, Chairman of the Harbor Board : Remembered the night o! Nove ber 23. Plaintiff was present as a reporter. The meeting was commenced when plaintiff made

his appearance, During the whole course Si the proceedings the plaintiff made severp* offensive remarks, and he thought Mr Hunderland asked how long the members were to be subjected to that soft of Behaviour. He then told Mr Baldwin that unless HB ebffid behave better he would have to be turned out. When plaintiff served the w;|t he (witness) noticed he was unsteady on his legs. Hehid to order plaintiff to retire when member* went ihtb Oohlmittei and in walking out ha could see that it took him all hie time to mon the ddiw. Have never been aware ol the firm of Common; ’Shelton de Qo. doing business for the Bosl'd, hot have they.- They get no commission from the firm of McEwen and Co., nor have they had work indirectly from the Board, The plaintiff was most anmistakeably drunk at tne meeting. Mr Rees further aross-examinea the witness upon matters connected with ths Hsrbef Board’s financial position. G; L. Sunderland deposed ho was. a .mefii, ber of tho Harbour Board and Chairman; of the County Council. He was at the meeting of the Harbour Board the night the writs were served. Was himself served that night. (Witness then described how the writ had been served by the plaintiff). Noticed that plaintiff, .several times interrupted the speakers) rapping bn ,tha table, op-w so often that he (Witness) leant ovex. ani asked the Chairman how long this cbndnsf was to be allowed to continue. Finally the Chairman said he would have him turned out if he interrupted again. The cause for this was " I think he was drunk." Cross-examined by Mr Rees Witness did not speak because of any personal animus against plaintiff, merely Ito thought the business was being interrupted, Mr Walter Wastnoy deposed: Was » obnimercial traveller. Was in Gisborne on the 12th January last. Was staying at th« Masonic Hotel. Remembered seeing the plaintiff late one night in that hotel, Mr Rees here rose and objected to tho evidence tf this witness being taken, After argument by both counsel Mr DeLautour withdte.w the witness; and addressed ths Court at some length for the, defence.. . After Messrs DeLautour and Bees had addressed the Jury, His Honor, in his addreec,' said they would gather from the articles referred to, that there were four charges of an alleged defamatory nature, some being reiterated, which might be looked upon as one. There were two charges of drunkenness, one coupled with conduct of a disgraceful nature. On each of the issues the plaintiff asked for f .mages as was rightly said by the Counsel tor the plaintiff, if they found that on* aspen cion was justifiable and hot the Others, the ( fendants would be liable on those aspefs si is not proved to have been justifiable. His Honor summarised the evidence given by the witnesses as to the alleged drunkenness at the Board's meeting, and concluded by saying it was for the Jury to say whether -ae defendants were justified in making the remarks they did. Ab to the other allegations, there was nb evidence, Ab to the statement that the plaintiff had allowed himself to be made a catspaw of in bringing an action in which, if he had lost, be would not have been able to pay the costs of the defendants, he said had proved that a large number of property owners had not been satisfied with the way the works had been carried out, and some of the ratepayers had instructed the plaintiff's solicitor to have a ease stated ; and from this it might be inferred that the plaintiff was not clone in bringing the action. Tf’s was followed by the fact that Baldwin brought the action himself afterwards. The plaintiff also complained of the statement that he hod been used in a similar manner on a previous occasion. There was no evidence on this occasion. There was no evidence on this point, and if they thought there was anything defamatory in it they would find for the plaintiff. The jury retired, and in quarter of an hour returned giving a verdict for defendants. His Honor said he would enter up costs on the proper scale, certifying to the special jury. Mr Bees asked for leave to have the judgment reversed, and judgment entered up for plaintiff as there was no defence. His Honor said he could not do that. Mr Rees then said he would apply to havt the verdict set aside and have a new trial. Mr DeLautour said the matter could be gone into on Monday, and the application was allowed to stand over, His Honor taking a note of it.