A SLANDER CHARGE

Hokitika Guardian, 30 January 1920, Page 3

A SLANDER CHARGE

| STAINES V. OLSON. At the Magistrate’s Court this morning, before Mr E. C. Levvey, S.M., the hearing of a slander charge Thomas M. Staines (Mr Wells) v. John Olson (Mr j Murdoch) was- heard, a claim for £2OO damages as against Olson who stated that Staines while driving his (Olson’s) cattle from Kokatalii to Hokitika, sub-

’ j stituted two stags for two bullocks. L j Mr Wells in opening the case said tlie case was one of slander arising out of a statement made on Dec. Ist by the i defendant, John Olson, wherein he ae- ' cused the plaintiff (Staines) of having substituted certain cattle for ' 1 others, ! and of stealing them. ! Thomas Matthew Staines, cattle j dealer and drover of Koiterangi, de- | posed he was the plaintiff." On Nov. | 27th at a sale by Mr Jeffries, Mr Olson 1 purchased some bullocks, heifers and > two stags, after the sale. Mr Jeffries branded them on the tail with tar. j Witness purchased' some cattle at the ■ sale. On the following day witness went to drive his own cattle to Araliura. When he got there he found Mr Jeffries’ man had come with Mr Olson to drive the latter’s purchases. Witness 1 was asked to help drive Olson’s cattle i down with his own ,nnd lie consented. , Mehnrry helped for two or three miles ! and then left Shaw and witness. On ! arrival at Kanieri they drafted out j witness’ cattle which were branded on the right pin bone, and then helped to I drive Olson’s cattle to Hokitika. Met !Mr Olson in Hokitika'. Had considerable trouble to drive the cattle. They j were left for the night at the abattoir ' paddock. The’ next morning Olson and Shaw took, the cattle to Humphreys. ■ At the next sale at Araliura on Dec. Ist, after the fat stock sale 'there was a j big drop in cattle. Mr Olson was near the footbridge. Air Olson then said, “Gome and take those stags away.” ( Witness asked him what he meant, j Olson said “You took two bullocks out

and substituted two stags.” Mr Murdoch raised the objection that in an action for slander for words spoken, the plaintiff is strictly bound to the words mentioned in tlie statement of, claim and the addition of other words constitutes a different action and not admissable in the hearing. Mr Welis asked for Mr Murdoch’s authority. The Magistrate said there was nodoubt that the whole conversation must be set out in the statement of claim, and no special words can be taken' out by themselves. Mr Murdoch referred to the law which stated that the actual, words must be stated in the information. Mr Wells held that the words of the witness were the words contained in the statement of claim. His Worship said he proposed to hear the evidence and if he did not consider it admissable he would not consider it. Witness continuing, said OJson said, “You have got two of my beasts, two cf my steers.” i His Worship said this was purely in- j admissable. Jt was a direct charge of theft. | Witness continued.—Olsen said you come and take your stags away. Wit- • ness said next time yon go to a sale gefc a pair of goggles to see what you are buying. OlsCn said:—“Take your -| stags away.” Olsen then said come and see Mr Jeffries and see what lie has to say. Witness went along to (there Mr Jeffries was, but Olson did not wait | and drove away. Witness spoke to Jeffries on the matter. j Counsel endeavoured to lead as to damage and Mr Murdoch objected. | Witness ’continued that he had suffered considerable damage as a result. The matter had gone all round the

country. His Worship in answer to a further protest by Mr Murdoch, said he eonJ sidered it was in the same category as , the first objection. Mr Wells could not j lead evidence as to special damage. Witn'css continued that he was a ' drover and tho statement iiad affected him considerably. The report must nf- ! feet him until it was cleared up. John McGuigan sen., of Arahiira was present when the remarks were made. | To Mr Murdoch: He saw the nc- ; count sale notice of 28 steers, Robinson | £5 155,—£165. There were eight heifers and three stags in that lot. The account was absolutely wrong. Had done I business with Mr Olson before. The j prico given was about £2 a head too , much. | John McGuigan, farmer of Arahura. 1 deposed that lie remembered Olson and Staines meeting at the sale at Arahura. Heard Olson ask “when are you going to come and: take the stags away.” Staines said: “Send them hack.” Then Olson said: “Come and take your b stags away and return my cattle.” The impression lie took from the words was that Olson meant Staines had , changed the cattle. It was spoken in a I friendly way. Staines ended up by telling Olson to put his goggles on for the next cattle lie bought. Heard a lot of talk about the matter. | Norman Karnbach deposed lie lived at Kokatalii and was a cattle drover. Remembered Mr Olson buying cattle at Kokatalii. He bought a line of yearling steers and heifers. There were two that some people call stags. Jeffries branded them. Heard Mehnrry ask Staines to give a hand in driving them next da v'

Wiliam Jelhaos deposed he was an , auctioneer at Hokitika. At Kokatalii ■ in November last Mr Olson bought a line , of stock consisting of 28 yearling steers J | and heifers. At the time of the sale he . did not know it, hut lie subsequently heard there was one stag among them. He would not employ a driver again if he thought he substituted cattle for others. > f To Mr Murdoch: If Olson said he meant that a mistake had been made, . by liis words, lie thought that it would mean that a mistake had been made, inadvertently, ho had no doubt. Trouble often arose owing to the “boxing” of two lots of cattle owing to the mixing of the stock. To Mr Wells: He had been authorised to allow Mr Olson £lO in connection with tho inclusion of one or two stags. John Shaw deposed lie was a storeman formerly employed by Mr Jeffries. He remembered Mr Olson buying 28 mixed cattle at Kokatalii. Arranged for Staines assisting in driving the cattle. Olson met him at Hokitika. ' after Staines had separated his at Kanieri. On the road to Hyi\\pl\roys a 1 stag lagged hack and IVfr Olson said ho ' did Uov recognise that as his. Witness

sai dit was his, and was branded on the tail like the others. Had to have Staines’ assistance to drive the cattle. , This was tlie case for plaintiff. I Mr Murdoch applied for a non-suit on the ground that the plantiff had not proved the words contained in the statemen of claim, as it was essential the exact words used in the statement of claim should be proved. Secondly lie claimed a non-suit, that the plaintiff had not proved the innuendo set out in tlie plaintiff’s statement of claim that the defendant meant that the plaintiff had stolen the cattle. In his evidence for the plaintiff, Mr Jeffries had stated that a mistake had been made; John Olson deposed he was a farmer at Humphreys and lately lived at Hokitika. On 27th November, witness bought what lie thought was' 28 steers. Met the cattle in Hokitika. Took them to the abattoirs. Next day they were driven to Humphreys by Shaw. ; At Araliura witness spoke to Staines saying there had been a mistake, es- j pecially in one, a stag. Tf there was a" stag it must have been one of his (Staines). Staines got very angry and said “do you mean I stole it.” Witness sa.id no but that a mistake bad been made. Did not have-tlie slightest notion of meaning that Staines bad any criminal intent. Staines said to him the more you look at cattle the smaller they got. He also told him the next time to put on goggles at tlie sale. Witness had been offered £lO compensation for the mistake made. He did not know why Mr Staines got so angry because witness bad said a mistake had been made.

To Mr Wells: AVas not in a temper when Staines met him on tlie bridge. Said to Staines, “bring back my cattle and take vour stags away.” He said that because be thought.the stags uere not his. He would not deny saying “bring back my cattle and take vour I) stags away.” He said this because lie knew a. mistake had been made. He denied accusing Staines of stealing his (witness’) cattle. He only got angry with Staines because Staines got so angry with witness when lie said that a. mistake liad been made. This concluded the evidence. Decision was reserved.

His Worship gave judgment in the case of Staines v. Olson. He said it seemed a very severe storm in a very small tea cup. He felt the plaintiff had not satisfied him that the allegations in the statement of claim were nof substantiated. He had no doubt that the words used did not carry the innuendo of criminal intent and he agreed with the two witnesses for plaintiff (McGuigan and Jeffries) that the inference was that a mistake had been made. Plaintiff would be,non-suited, counsel’s foe £lO being allowed to defendant’s •ounsel.