SUPREME COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 24 June 1922, Page 3

SUPREME COURT

A MB Kb CAS!'

(il’KiMO'l 11. .inn.' :M. Ai ihe Supreme Court yost«ril:iy statements made in the report ol an accident v* !ii;h orrunvd nt. t lu- inchh»>ntiic .snwuiill to relied « <*» tlio character of tin.' Inspector of Ma-

dmen iMr I’. Mackenzie) "ere tin’ -nliif-t of proceedings for alleged hM'iiml a claim for £20!) damages >n--LiLutt-.l liy Unit officer before Mr .justice Attains against the “Cire. v **' v , L ' r V»*»*•* j».*’ Company situ! I’. !«• e “ iret'nrv of the Timber Works’ fnion The" nla:nl iff in l'.is statement of

claim sail! that lie was Inspector of Ma.-hinerv in the Westland District. On or aim at February 17th. 15122 tiro defendant Fredcrbk Turley. taUely and lnalicioiisly communicated to tlio defendant company and authorised anti procured t-r, defendant . omuany to »übllsh the statements complained 01. 1 cmrtliv evidence was heard. his. honour sums ur. ; Tn summing op tin; rnsr IT’s Ho.isor. said it was desirable that judgment 1 should lie given promptly. There was a question of privilege and fair comment. The defendant* had to show that they had an honest belief that tile ! statements were title and that they were privileged in the matter of puli- . lie interest in the performance of their 1,.„al and moral duty. Besides showing the statements to he true the defend- j ants had to show that as far as they ; were commented upon, the facts were i fair. There was little in the "av of comment from the statement of fact.: ft had been alleged that there had I}°''" three accidents. His Honour read a passage from the statement alleged to he , lihellious. Tie contended that th ■ references were directed at plaintiff ns : they coukl not educate the Tlepartuiont ; to the necessity for the attention of in»- | chinerv, hut most mean the education of j an individual working for the depart- , ment, Tt applied to the person respon. I sihle-- in the district in which the nc. j cidont happened lor the safety of the . lives of the men. There was no evi- i deuce that Turley quoted from know- j ledge in any other district than this | article in question he took it that the > person intended was identified as the . plaintiff. Two witnesses had said that they had no doubt, about that. Plaintiff also declared this to he so, although Turley stated that he did not refer to the plaintiff if the paragraph wa s written with the intention of other people interpreting it, tlio only person'meant. was the plaintiff. The assertion contained in the paragraph was that McKenzie had displayed inefficiency oiul had shown himself incapable and in need of education in his duties. With regard to the truth of the statements he saw ample Evidence that the defendnns had discharged themselves of the onus and the statements in the article had not been fact. Tt was true that three accidents occurred; also that Hill had been injured. He was not satisfied, however, that in any of the eases any precautions that should have Been instituted bv McKenzie would have any hearing upon the accidents. One of the eases was removed from the Inspector of Machinery altogether. A good deal had boon said by the tieI'eiidants about the Inchbonnie accident hut they had failed to satisfy him that there was anything in the front 1 art of the engine that was out of order as a result of improper inspection on the part of the Inspector. It was not the duty of the inspector to visit, only one mill, hut his duties curried him over a large area. At the time ol the inspection the timber apparently did not show any defect evidence had been given to the effect. The evidence of the witness who said the wood was f idling to pieces constituted an incredible story. The onus was on the defendant to establish the fact and their fair comment thereon. There was also the onus on the “Argus” to show their privilege in the matter of an honest belief in the truth of the statements. It was possible to make an unreasonable statement although one of honest belief. It was the duty of Turley to make inquiries into these things and keep in I touch with the mills which ho reprei seated and it was 'very creditable to ' rhat gentleman to see him looking

after the interests of the men. In the course of his investigations, however, he must procure accurate statements. It was impossible to believe that Turley hn<l an honest belief in the statements referred to- The accident at the State mine was not due to neglect as it was not usual to guard a pulley which is two feet above a man’s head. The malice was important only when the facts were proven to be true. The whole attitude of the defendants had to be considered as well as the history of the differences between the parties. Both defendants were liable. Plaintiff had not suffered any direct financial loss, lint the fact must not Ire forgotten that the statements were of a serious nature and may yet have effect. However lie did not feel disposed to as sess damages to any extra amount. Judgment would lie given for plain till' for C7o and costs £‘4 4s, seconc counsel, other witness’s expenses to hi fixed by the registrar. SITTING AT HOKITIKA. SATURDAY, JPXE 24th. (Before His Honour Mr Justice Adams] His Honour took his seat at 0.31 a. m. till AND JURY. The following Grand Jury was empanelled— ft. 11. Renton, w'. H. Shanmm. K. Wild, E. If. Wetliey, W. Ross. K. XV. Feddersen, W. E. Richards, V, W . Boner, 11. W.-R. Sweney, W. .1, Houston, J. O. Mavfarlane, C-.. Evans. A. A. Andr.ewes, .1. S. Langford, G. Linklater, J. 11. Wilson, W. A. Head. A. E. Benjamin, I*. 11. Renton, S. J. Preston, L. Aldridge. G. Trippner, A. B. King. .Mr If. Wild was elected foreman. His Honour said lie was <jla ( f the alendar wits so liglit, there being only me case of receiving stolen goods. The iccuscd, CuLhush, is charged with reviving £2 17s, of money which had icen stolen from a business pbu-e m lokitika. \uo(ber poison had alien ]y icea convicted of the theft. Tue only ■vidi-nee to go before them would be Suit, of this oilier person. Tv. o pen sells vent to this store with the object of tealing. On their way they met Cut. uisii who afterwards it is staled received part of tile stolen pioperty. Tile evidence the Jury had before them was very neak. He reminded them t int, it came from the person who had actually been convicted himself, and who was an accomplice of the accused. It was their duty not to send the case to t»e Common Jury if they did not think there was a charge to answe.r personally ho did not think a Common Jury would convict In such a ease. The Grand*] duty then letired. IN DIVORCE. Ilulcie Ai. Bannister (Mr Murdoch) v. James Bannister. Petition for decree absolute. The absolute order was granted with pertminent custody of child to petitioner. IX BANKRUPTCY. Frederick Howard (Mi Sellers instructed by Mr Wells) applied for iiis discharge. \n order of discharge was granted there being no j objection ami a favoiiable report from the assignee had been file I. IN BANCO. 1). J. Ynrworth, (Mr .Park), v. E. M. Bruce and A. C. Phillips (fxeeutrics in estate of David Yarworth. deousel) Originating summons for order that I). J. Yat worth become a eo-executor in terms of the will. The order was made as asked.

.1. IF yd. A. O'TTalloran, and T. R. Hickson (Air Alnrdoch) appellants AY. Af. Will (acting Alining Registrar!, respondent (Air Kitehinglmm). Appeal from AVarden’s decision mncelling timber areas at Hokitika Go-go. Tt was agreed that tile case should lie taken as a rehearing.

REX. A 7. OUTHUSH. Tlie Grand Jury here returnp ! with a verdict of “No Rill”. The Grand Jury recommended that it was their unanimous opinion that in view of the increased education, and wide publication in the newspapers, it he a recommendation that grand juries he abolished except in capital offences.

His Honour promised to forward the recommendation to the proper quarters and then dismissed the Grand .Tiny from further attendance.

The Common Jury were also dismissed.

\PPKAL CONTINUED

Air Kiteliinghani outlined the progress of the ease as far as the decree of the Court for cancellation of the rights. Kvidence "as called.

\V. M. Will, Alining Registrar, was sworn. Air Murdoch raised the point* oji the appointment ol Air Will as Alining Registrar, and this "'as discussed at some length. Tt was pointed out that when Air Nalder. Alining Registrar was transferred to Gisborne, Mr Will was appointed by tile Warden as temporary Registrar, hut this had not been confirmed by the Public Service Commissioner, until April last. Wit. ness gave evidence that he arrived at Hokitika on 29tli. November 1921 arid Mr Nahh r had then gone, and on December Ist the Warden had given nes s the temporary appointment. His Honour said he wanted evidence that the time the suit was instituted, Mr Nalder was th© Mining Registrar for this district. He wanted to know what would put an end to Mr Naldor’p appointment in this district. Ho took it that when an officer was transferred from one district to another, liis authority in the former district at once lapsed.

After further discussion bet'weon counsel and his Honor, tho latter stated that counsel must produce evidence of the appointment of Afr Nalder as Mining Registrar before lie could produce evidence of Mr AVill’s authority as Acting Registrar. His Honor said the first question before tho Court was whether the plaintiff can sue. Ho was hound to sympathise. with Mr Kitchingham as lie was brought here in a ease which was flic fault of persons in authority in other places. His Honour said lie must uphold the contention of Mr Murdoch and the appeal would he upheld. Costs were not asked for. (T/'ft. Sitting.)