Manakau Libel Action.

Manawatu Herald, 21 May 1903, Page 2

Manakau Libel Action.

CLAIM FOR £IOOO.

On Tuesday and Wednesday t Mr Justice Edwards and a common jury of twelve heard an action by SwainsQn and Bevan, Ltd., contractors, etc., Manakap, ; against Alexander John Hatfield, farmer, Te Horo, to recover £IOOO damages for lible.

Mr Skerrett appeared forjthe plaintiffs, and Messrs Bell and mdfield for the defendant.

The letter containing the alleged libel was one appearing in the Otaki Mail in reply to one sent by Mr Simcox, and was written to expose the inaccuracy of some of Mr Simcox’a statements.

During the hearing Thomas Bevan said he was principal shareholder in Swainson and Bevan, and was managing director. That Mr Davies held five £1 shares in his company and Mr Kebbell held a similar munber. Messrs Davies, Kebbell and Bartholomew were guarantors to the hank for the £ISOO referred to, and they had security for three or four times that amount,

John McCulloch, secretary to the County Council who was called for the defence proved to certain resolutions passed and correspondence that took place with reference to defendant’s offer of gravel, etc , for the making of the road referred to. In answer to Mr Skerrett, the witness said he had a room full of Mr Hadfiold’s letters, all very long and very peremptory. (Laughter,) Mr Skerrett: I suppose you would want an increase of salary to answer them all ?—I would. (Renewed laughter.) In answer to further questions the witness stated that all contracts were let by public tender and he did not know of any occasion on which plaintiffs’ were accepted that they were not the lowest. Re-examined by Mr Bell, witness said he had twenty or thirty letters from defendent extending over nine op ten years in the strong room of the Council. He had been told to be very cautious of Mr Hadfleld’s letters. (Laughter.) This instruction was given to him by Councillors, of whom Mr Simcox might have been one in years gone by. The defendant gave evidence. The jury gave a verdict in favor of the defendant.