THE MONCKTON-BROWN SLANDER CASE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIII, Issue 1037, 31 August 1911, Page 3

THE MONCKTON-BROWN SLANDER CASE.

JURY,FINDS FOR MONCKTON.

DAMAGES j£f>7o.

The ease in which (J. A. W. Monckton sued Byron Brown for £1250 damages for alleged slander, and moved for an injunction, was hoard at the Supreme Court this morning, before his Honour the Chief Justice and the following jury : —Mosers it. \V Sinclair (foreman), A. Tew Wm. Hobble, Jno. Davidson. Egbert. I’ratt. G. W. Hills. S. Kirkland, due. Rickman, T. 11. Lane. Jno. Tint, W. ’>■ Hyenian. and G, W Koehler. Mr Morrison, with him Mi* Cooke, up[•eared for plaintiff, and Mr Tripp lor defendant. Mr Morrison, in opening the case, said the plaintiff was a rheep farmer and dealer in stock, and tho defendant, was the iiead of a storekeeping business in Otaki. The action was for alleged slander aiieciing plaintiffs commercial credit. If a single isolated statement only had been dropped Mr Monckton would ha\o j#nored it" The slander in this ease, however, were, it was contended, of repeated occurrence, and had a currency from November of last year to June of the present year. Counsel read live statements alleged to have been made at. various times and to diUcri'iit pimple by defendant, which statements concerned plaintiffs transactions in relation to promissory notes. Mr Monckton, who was a New Zealander, had held a .position in New Guinea, under the British Government for thirteen yearn before returning to Now Zealand to settle.. Mr Brown had filed defences that his statements were privileged. This was not a political slander in any sense of the word, and was not a political action. Mr Morrison said further that he would call witnesses to prove that the statements were made, the defence would then produce its evidence, after which he would call witnesses in rebuttal. Mr Monckton did endorse the bill for Mr Stravvbridge, who died as the result of an accident. This bill was payable to Mr Brown, and was renewed several times at Mr Strawbridge’s convenience Eventuai'y. after the accident, to Mr Strawbridge. tho bill was dishonoured, tin' notice of dishonour arriving during the absence of Mr Monckton. It, was a question of how many renewal —which were for Mr Htrawbridge’s accommodation —were endorsee by Mr Monckton. Counsel went into details of the monetary transactions of plaintiff, ami said it was a suggestion by tlie defence that Mr Monckton inceced Mr Strawbridge, who was nis employee, to obtain when certain wages weie due to him, a Imm from Mr Brown by promissory note which Mr Monckton would endorse. It was alleged, in tin l .statement of claim, that slander: were uttered to Mr Leslie Skerman, manager of Dalgety and Go.'s Utaki ullice; Mr Howland S. Young, Manukau agent, of the N.Z. Loan anil Mercantile Agency Co.; Mr S. Beattie, station manager, of Aianakatt; Mr J. 1). Howell, of Utaki; and Mr R. R Marlin, in respect of the causey of action plaintilf claimed in all £1250 and petitioned for lurther relief. THE EVIDENCE, Tho first witness was Stanley Bealtie, January 25. lyii, Mr Brown said to him, “Don’t think Monckton is a. wealthy man. You c.,n get that oil your min i Beattie. His paper is being dishonoured throughout the district. 1 only wish 1 had tlie value of tho paper ilwelf on which ' tho bills are written. Surely as a business man ( ought to know what 1 am talking about, and what I tel! you is correct..” Cross-examined, he staled that Brown said that “everyone in the district was chasing Monckton for money.” Witness and Brown were chatting together in tho train on the occasion. Re-examined by Mr Morrison The conversation was loud enough to be hoard by any one in the immediate vicinity. Roland S. Young, agent, at. Manakaii for the Loan and Mercantile Co., stated that Mr Brown had made a statement to him about the end of the year, about Mr Monckton. Witness was at Mr Browne’s office, and the conversation started on polities. Witness said to Mr Blown, “we will have a hard row to hoe this year with Mr Monckton.” Mr Brown said, “Monckton. Who is Monckton ! He pulled a bundle of papers out, of the safe ami threw them to witness saying, “ixiok at iliese; all his dishonoured papers. 1 have more dishonoured paper of Mouckton’s in my safe than 1 ever hud before.” Witness did not examine the papers. Mr Brown continued, “1 first added 21. per cent., then 6 per cent., then 10 per cent.. and in a few days' I w ill add 20 per cent., and he would sooner s igu than pay." Mr Brown added "Monckton has been round to the bunk to try to raise money on Ins wife's income, hut it is only an annuity and it dies with her, uud the banks won’t touch it. Do you know what 1 would do with you, Roland Young, if you were working lor mo and gave Monokton credit! 1 should give you tlie ‘seek’ and very soon." Witness reported tho statement to the company’s auctioneer at Levin, If they received a bail report they could not give credit, frier to this Monckton had been on their list ol good creditors, and witness considered it his duty to report Brown's statement to the auctioneer. By Mr Blair : Witness did not call on Mr Brown for the. purpose of obtaining an advance of money. Brown hail not made loans to witness. Ho did not main l an advance to enable witness to get married. The conversation with riderelite to Monckton was begun alter witness hail concluded his business with Blown. By Mr Morrison; Brown was very bitter when making tlie statement. John U. iioweii, ot Maslertou, slated that lie hud business with Monckton who was a general farmer ami dealer. About November last, on the Utah: bowling green, a remark was passed that .Monckton was likely to bo an Opposition 'Candidate. Brown said ‘What chance has Monckton got 1 hold more dishonoured cheques and bills of Ids than any other man in the district.’' Witness said bo did not believe it. Brown replied "that lie was a business man. and knew what he was talking about." By Mr Blair : Others were present, and Air Brandon, manager of the Fresh Eood and Ice 00., Wellington, might hav--Heard Browns statement. Witness repeated the conversation to Monckton about Juno ot the present year, and to others before that lime. Witness was present at a meeting of the Bow ling Blub when Monckton referred to an insult being ottered him on tlie green. Brown ruse and expressed astonishment lliut. such a charge should Ik- made against tain. Ho ottered to resign, and denied having insulted Monckton. Witness did not know what .Monckton was referring to. Alter the meeting Brown muted anyone present to say that he had insulted .Monckton. ’i lie. meeting took [dace after witnes a had informed Atuneklon of the incident of November, but witness did not know that it Was this to which -Monckton was referring at the' meeting. Witness had never asked Brown Ins opinion on Moueuton and tins financial position. Tho words used to Mr L Skerman, agent, for Dalgety and t_'o., at Otaki, were admitted by the del once. They were: "I cannot gel any money out. of him (.Monckton). 1 hold dishonoured promissory notes of his which have boon owing lor a Jong time, and on which L have charged b and 10 per cent., and will on this occasion charge 20 per cent., which -Monckton will gladly pay. Look here, ckerman, if this man pays this till i will give you your house- ’ (held by Air Sherman from defoudaait). -Mr Skerman was cross-examined, and gave evidence in support of the statement. J ames B. Brandon, of Wellington, staled that on the (Jiai.i bowling green Mr Brown had made a statement to the effect that he held -Mr Muuektou’s disiicncured bills, uud that his cheques were no good. By Mr Biair; He thought tlie question might have arisen from his own conversation bringing up political matters. Richard R- Martin, Opposition organiser, staled that he culled on Air Brown in connection with political matters, anil to tell him that the Opposition party wore not prepared to officially accept him as then candidate. Mr Brown said : "So you are going to run Aionckton!” and witness said; “Yes, wo are.” Mr Brown said; “Alouckton cannot afford to light tlie election, and he lias no chance of being returned.” Witness said that any ehaiues Mr Monckton iiad were being considerably minimised by statements that At r Brown iiad made. Witness told him lie referred to statements by Mr Brown hist time he iiad met witness— "that he iiad a bill of Mouckton’s which was constantly being renewed, and which he did not anticipate would bo .pant Mr Brown eaid: “It’s God Almighty's truth, Mi

Martin. Mr Aionckton came into my office ami asked mo to renew a. bill a fifth time, and 1 refused to do so. Ho went out and made arrangements elsewhere for tho payment of it.” Witness told Mr Brown it, was exceedingly foolish of him to make statements of this kind, which witness iiad every reason to believe were untrue, and for which he might probably get himself into trouble. Mr Brown said there was a statement about that, he had already heen served with a writ, and hail fainted on receiving service thereof, lie then emphasised Iho fact that he had made his statement; to only one man at. a time, and that, his word was as good as witness’s, lie further stated: “What 1 have said is confidential.” Witness told him he distinctly refused to treat, the matter as confidential. Mr Brown came hack to the subject of Mr Monckton’s private all'aiir, and said; “Monckton is not, in a position to eonrest this seat. He has no money and is dependent on his wife's annuity. Why, I could buy up the Moncklons.” lie then prodneed a packet of papers from the safe, and said: “Do you know what (hose arc! Bund Transfer titles.”

R. R. Martin. Opposition organiser, cross-examined by Mr Blair, staled that matters connected with tlie present, case necessitated his visit, to Brown. It, was Brown who mentioned Monekton’s name, ho asking witness if the party had selected Monckton as their candidate.

By Air Morrison: Straw-bridge’s name was not mentioned by Brown.

William S, Bennett, acting-manager of Dalgety and Co., stated that, since ho had been in tho office Monckton had been a client, of the firm. His was a first-class account, and did not, to witness’s knowledge, deal in promissory notes. Witness produced a Idler from Brown to Dalgety and Go., dated June 1, 1911. denying a rumour that, he hud sent them information as to Monckion’s financial position. Janies Macintosh, manager of Dalgely’s Wellington office till the end of August, stated that. Mr .Monckton’-, credit with tho firm bad been good, and witness had no reason to question hi« financial stability. His Honor said that counsel for plaintilt having opened a reply to the plea ot justification, in his address to the jury, it was doubtful whether he would bo entitled to call evidence in rebuttal of tho defence.

Nurse Seeling, matron of tho Otaki hospital, stated that she had had sixteen yeans' experience in her profession. The ial.o Albert Straw bridge was admitted to the hospital owing to a fractured spine, and it was found necessary to administer morphia, from time lo time. Tho effects of the morphia varied very much. Mr Strawbridgo had delusions at times during his illness. By Air Blair: Witness was not, present when Strawbridgo was questioned on the present; ease. diaries H. Williams, plumber and contractor, o 7 Otaki, -slated that he had had considera'dio transactions with Monckton, running into £BOO or £9OO, since 1908. lie had never had any difficulty in getting money from Air Monckton; in fact, ho had been asked whether ho wanted money when ho had been slow in rendering an account..

By Mr Blair: lie had novel- told anyono in Otaki that lie could not, get money from Monckton.

Carl L. ITiirlmann, manager of the Bank of Australasia at Otaki, Hated that Air Monckton kept an account, with tho hank, and it had been quite satisfactory. He find never known Alonckton’s cheque to U: dishonoured. Air Aionckton had never been short of money as far as witness know.

By Mr Blair; The account was not always overdrawn. It vva-a an imprest account which was replonLshablo _ front a source iu Wellington. Tho nominal limit of overdraft was £2OO. At one timo tho overdraft was £450; that was before Mr Aionckton changed his holding to a dairy farm. Ho remembered Air Aionckton approaching him with reference to securing an advance on his wife’s guarantee. There were oniy two banks in Oi-aki. The bank s solicitor’s report on the marriage settlement was uot in the nature of supporting the guarantee, uud it was not accepted. Tho plaintiff, Charles A. W. Moncklon, farmer and stock dealer, of Otaki. stated that he had kept an account of his transactions with Strawbridge. Tlie account commenced in Juno, 1909.11 c identified the endorsement of cheques by Albert Strawbridgo. Strawbridgo gave a bill to .Mr Sandihuids for £24 Is 6d, and witness paid it. Ho endorsed a bill for Strawbridgo to Air Brown. Air Strawbridge’s wages at that time wore overdrawn. Air Strawbridge was never substantially in credit on his wages account. He whs thrown from his horso on tho Aiauakau racecourse, and subsequently died from his injuries. He was being paid £75 a year, with house aud certain supplies. Witness gave him a rise of £25 a year and paid his hospital expense',. Omitting these expenses Strawbridge was £4l 0s 7d in witness’s debt at tlie time of his death. Witness never had any difficulty in drawing cheques for his requirements. W was now a willing candidate for the Otaki scat. Ho had not sought nomination. Nunc of the bats were rendered for witness s accommodation. He did uot pay any discount. He could not remember endorsing for Strawbridge any bills other than Uio two mentioned. The .statement that witness went to Brown’s, sat iu a particular chair, aud asked for a renewal ol a bill, was absolutely false. it was not true that his wife's annuity died with her. lie had never been in such a position that he could not pay every peuiiy he owed. By Air Blair; Witness endorsed the p.u. to oblige Strawbridge. A letter conl ii.iuiug a dish.,Horn- notice was registered to witness, and ho sent a cheque in pay • i/uiiit ui. Uic amount. Lliut uub tho notice of dishonour that ho had received. Ho was certain lie did not call on Air ijrown to renew any bill. He called to pay an account of £2, and found he hart Iclt his cheque book behind. Ho asked tor a cheque form, but Air Brown could not give him one. There was no other conversation between them. W itness endowscd a p.n. for Mr Strawbridgo on Ucloocr b, before tho accident. The request for endorsement was not made by Airs Strawbridge. Expenses iu connection with urn visiting ol sales were paid to Straw bridge in cash. Strawbridge Had never made any claims on witness for additional wages. The bowling green incident was mentioned Lo him by Howell or Beattie, and tin form in which he received it was embodied in tho claim. THE DEFENUE.

Ale Blair, m outlining ihc deience, said lha. they held mat AimieiMon signed five promissory noc each ot which was (Ushonoured, aim notices ot dishonour m connection wim winch were served. iu>lasl, ot the notes was paid by Aionckton on receipt ol the dishonour notice. Air mow n would stale ihat lie made no reference u> Mr Aloneklon on the bowling green. 1 he inrv’s duty, he anticipated, would be confined to deciding whether Brown s nllciauctfs lo Skerman and Alar tin were implied ov malice. Uounsel held that Ihe.-e siatemenls were privileged. Aloneklon had sold slock for delendain. Alarlin had an interest m Urn iioiinuuUoii lor the Utahseal, and was privileged on iho ground ol interest and duly. . Byron i’aul Brown, managing direetoi of the firm ol Byron Brown, Bid., fondant m Uio action, slated liuit lie, had dealings with plaiinilf. it vvais Ins piam tiee lo render accounts at the end of everv mouth. Footnotes depended on the linin' lo whom the account, was rondeim • T 1..-, were affixed where uecessaiy. U» I,ad never gone past a polue nolle. Ml the ease ot Air Aloneklon. Wnneos r«urue^s aud nothing U> do "“1‘ bridge came to film for 11 l ° a debt- he said Mouektou wa^ovviugmrn^ wet Uiem froln Aloneklon would endorse a y.n. if defendant would advance Z Policy required. Aionckton vvos awa from Otaki at the Hum; bad lie bcu hit home vv finest, would not ‘“''O adva.m ed the money. \A itness tilled in. it t f ■■ o i Strawbridge signed it, mid Aionckton endorsed it. Witness stnl notification of the dishonouring ol he bill to Aionckton. Strawbridge said Alone a ion woo willing to endorse another bill. A o.ii. endorsed by Aionckton, but not signed by Strawbridge, was brought to witness by Ales Strawbridge a lew days after her husband met w ilh Ins accident. Witness sent her to the hospital, and she returned with the bill signed Aionckton called on witness about March 2(, and suggested that a new bill be Strawbridge. in cuusoniwnco of wuat aUs Straw bridge had told him, witness declined te rone w tho bill. He received a cheque **from Monckton and had it cuslied 'Monckton sat in tho visitor’s chair in nllu** \Vltilths boiIUNGU he IStUU something to Skerman to thc L '^ ecl ; 1 ')• words mentioned m xte claim. Skerman and witness were talking politics, and possibly business ihe reason witness mentioned Monckton s nu-

ance was that lie did not wish Skerman to sell any of witness’s stock to Monckton. Tho conversation may have arisen through talk aliout a lino of sheep for which they were trying to find a customer. Witness told Young about tho p.n.’s ho had renewed for Monckton. Young wanted some accommodation from witness, and to excuse himself from helping him, witness showed him a fistful of dishonoured promissory notes and said that on© of MonekUm'a was there. One of tiny renewals was maturing at that time. Witness put current and dishonoured bills all together tn ,<ino bundle. Witness admitted the statement to Aloneklon.’s attempting to raise money on his wiles annuity. lie denied suggesting that all the paper that, ho showed Young was Monckton s, neither did he make any remarks as alleged about, the percentages. UKKKNDANT’S EVIDENCE.

Bvrou Brown, managing director of Bvroii Blown, Ltd., Ot.ikl, and defendant of the action, continued his evidence. Do stated that lie had attended a Maori wedding at Otaki but did not travel in the tram afterwards on the same day. Do had a conversation with Beattie in his (w it ness’) office. Witness said ho did not. think Monckton could allord to light the, election, and he did not think ho liad au\* cliiincu. , . ilis Honour interjoctod t-hal Uus \sus merely an opinion, and not slanderous. Continuing, witness stated that he di not refer to promissory notes ot Aloncklon’s in conversation with Beattie. Witness was particularly qu Ins guard with Beattie, because lie had frequently seen Beattie in company with Motet ton. Witness never said to anyone that, the whole district was chasing Monckton for money Witness never had a conversation with Dowell on the bowling green Howell came, to him in the same way sis Beattie came to witness in his office, lie was 111 tin- habit, of asking witness about, the finances of prospective customers. Ho was a butcher in business next, to witness’ Otaki store, and said there were reports current about Monckton’s finances. WitiMH-H rejoined that :he knew not king at all about. Monoktoh’s affairs. Witness thought that, Howell, being a friend* of Moiickton’s, was being used as a, trap to catch witness. Tho oonversai ion did not. take place on tho bowling green but on the Otaki railway station. Witness mentioned tho bills Monokton had dishonoured to him, A BOLITK’AL INTERVIEW.

Witness did not dispute the allegations as lo what ho said to 11. R. Martin. He came to see, witness officially tie the Opposition organiser, to inform him that Alunekloii had been selected as tlie candidate for the Otaki seat. Monckton’s chances were discussed, witness referring to his incapacity mid hi-, want of finances. Martin asked witn'ss to tel! Idm the fads of the case, and witness made it a special condition that the conversation should Ik> strictly private and confidential Witness then proceeded to tell linn about, it. _ Martin did not say it would not bo confidential; ho said nothing a hour- it at all. Witness informed him of the facts concerning the promissory note. Alarlin wanted witness to sland down and assist Moncklon, Wit-c-;s pointed out that ho wars tlie first Op-po-iliiiu candidate to run as close as ho did for the seal. His minority was 83 from the Government candidate. Tlie conversation lasted about, five or ten minutes. THE At ATT Ell OF THE BILLS. When Strawbridge came in tor a renewal of the first bill he said Aionckton had told him that lie (Moncklon) was hard up, and could not, pay it. la consideration of this, witness agrees to tho renewal. When the next bill became due, in June, the same tiling happened again. Monckton waso hard up. aud ho wanted a, renewal. Strawbridge had seen witness about renewal of the September hill before tho accident He said he did not think Monckton would pay it. Witness said “All right, wo will renew it, again tor yon.” It was not rci-ewcd till alter the " accident, which occurred on October 6. As each bill waa renewed, (he old one was returned to the man that gave tho renewal. Witness had made elforls lo trace the bills. He took one ol tneui to his bank manager for an opinion on the endorsement; it wa» endorsed “payable to tlio Bank of Australasia, Otaki.” The last „wo bills were brought to witness by Airs Strawbridge. The charge made against witness on the bowling green was a purely socal matter, and nothing to do with the present case. OHObS-ENAMINATION. By Air Aiorrison: Witness laid four stores, tho bead office bciug at Otaki. ft woiild bo about a year ago. perhaps 18 mumtis ago, mat witness was informed that he had offended Moncklon. Ho took the occasion to write lo Aionckton, to know it any of witness’ servants had treated him uncivilly, as he had heard tbal Aionckton had said that ho could nut get civility at witness’ store-. Witness would swear that he did not state m that letter that tho volume ot business was not as great as tormerly Air Aiorrison: “Do you ever dream, .Mr mown. Witness: "Ves, 1 sometimes dream.” Air aiorrison: “Do yon ever dream about. Air Aionckton!” \\ itness; "No, Air Aionckton is not a bogey ol mine.” (Laughter.). Air Aiorrison; "Von did not dream that Air Morrison came and sal in a chair in your office.” Witness: "No 1 did not dream it.” Duntimiiug, witness slated that the lending of money was not a department ol I In; business. He olien lent the fanners money and loot their bills for it- When ue useq me words lo fekernian “I can t gel, my money out of lillil,” lie was referring lo a promissory note and a debt ol ±/b as. Witness renewed the note lor btraw bridge because he could uot gel payment. W itness honestly believed tiiat Aionckton was .so pushed that he could not pay him ins debt ol ij 2o, advanced on btrawbridge's p.n. Witness was the Otaki correspondent ot Dunn and U"., a business protection agency. ft was his business lo ascertain the financial position ot people in ids district. Dunn anil Go. iisKcd him lo make a report on AfouekLon. and he did so. tl was a satisfucl.ny report so lur as tie was conceined, lie stated in d that Airs Aionckton was i rich woman, and Aionckton would not "go wrong'' while she was alive. Strawondgo was wrong in saying that two ul tile bills were not endorsed. He ■ nought must people would admit that Ins iisoiirances were reliable. He admitted saying lo Skerman, "it inis bill is met 10-morrovv. J will give yon your house.” Tlie bill was domiciled at witness’ ollice and lie knew 1 that he could not prevent it at, the bunk. Tile non-payment, on due Cate was not a (bsUonour by Aionckton, lull tlie non-payment on the next day would be a dishonour by Aionckton, The wagering ui a house on the question vvac Inn, a mulish juke. Witness wrote to Ihilgety (on June 1) referring K a nmiimr about AJoneklon’s financial stability ; that he heard that Aionckton was going to sue Him tor iibel. ami liuit he (witness) uiignt consider whether lie would not issue a writ against Aionckton. H itness wrote lo Dalgcly’s aud the Loan and Aleroanule asking them to contradict the statement Unit he had given them information about Aionckum's financial position. FURTHER EVIDENCE. Albert Straw bridge's (deceased) evidence was read. Archibald .1. b. Thompson, manager of the Bank of New Zealand, Otaki, staled that he remembered Brown o.,tiling to see him about, two p.u.'s endorsed by Aionckton. The first was between the dates Afarch and September, 1910. Tlie note was not lodged lor eo I lection; it was shown to him because tho endorsement was peculiar, li was endorsed. "Accepted, payable at the Bank ot Australasia.’ W itness’ opinion was asked as to the endorsement. On a later occasion ho saw another p.n., and he was aske-i whoso bill it was. it was not signed in the usual place for a .signature, but had the usual endorsement on the bank by Mr Aionckton. By Air Aiorrison; With regard to tlio first bill witness told Brown tiiat lie would present it at the Bank of Anst ralasia if ho w ished. Airs Flora Strawbridge, wife of Albert Strawbridge, deceased, stated that the saw Brown in connection with u. promissory note. She got a document from Brown, after her husband went into the hospital, aud she went with it to Air Monckton. She asked him if he would pay- it, and ho said “No”—that he could not aud would uot. This was probably in December; it was berore Christmas. He said Brown had robbed Strawbridge( because it should have been for £2O instead of £2l. He then endorsed the bill, and witness took it back to Brown. Her husband’s signature was uot on it at this lime. She afterward., went to the hospital and got her husband's signature. She then gave it to Brown. She could not remember whether there was a bill after this. , ,

Timotfiv O’Rourke, clerk of the Court, at Otaki, gave evidence that he was on the

bowling green on tho occasion mentioned in the claim. POINTS OF LAW.

Interrogatories of both tided were put in. Mr Blair wished to interpellate the issue. “Was defendant, in speaking to ,Skerman. actuated by express malice against the plaintiff!” and this was accepted. All legal questions ol Ixith sides wore reserved',' and Air Blair addressed the jury. ADDRESSES OF COUNSEL. Mr Blair .said the aetion rested on the question of defamatory .statements being made bv defendant. in the eases of conversations with Skerman and Martin there, iviq no denial, but with respect, to the other three grounds of action the defence did not admit, having used the words quoted. Politics were more or less mixed up in the ease. Possibly if there had not been an election in view they would not have been troubled by the ease. Monckton and Brown were both on the same side of the political fence, aml fortunately party politics did not enter into the mat tor. When a person goes into politics lie expects to be talked about.. -Mr Monckton complained (hat. he had been talked about a little too strongly. 'Tho defence suggested that, Ibis being his first essay in politics, lie w ;uj a little too thin-skinned That, counsel suggested, was the reason why he brought this action. Any old political campaigner would not have paid any attention!! at all to it. The jury’s duty would lav not so much that, of confining their iillciition to what words defendant used to Skt-mian and Martin, which were admitted, but in whether they were defamatory of plainti.'i. There was an important distinction between slander and libel. One might safely say about a man what he might, not writ© about him. The* whole ot tho talk, no doubt, laid a poliiieal hearing. Counsel did not suggest that, that might, be said of a politician which might, uot, be said of anyone else, but tho position of a.candidate was that of inviting the public to discuss him. One debates the chance s of poliiieal candidates and probably does not exercise tho samo care as though he were dealing with the mutter from a. business standpoint. Ah' Brown's remarks to Mr Skerman ami Air Martin were not intended to affect plaintiff's business. Plaintiff -et. up an innuendo, tho peculiar meaning that he gave to tho words being that he was in pecuniary difficulties and'not. worthy of commercial credit. The words with reference Jo tho dishonoured promissory notes might have meant that plaintiff was merely too careless to pay.

Mr Morison, in addressing the jury, said that defendant had led Skerman to believe that a bill of Moncktou’s would not be paid, and that Mcncklon had no intention of meeting it. Plaintiff, as a man respected in the district, was insulted by statements that he had uot paid his debts. Defendant admitted speaking about Monckton here, there and everywhere. The defence was that it was a political case. It was absurd to allege that. The only thing Monckton could do was to take action or lay under a stigma. Defendant had wiiiten to the auction firms stating that if Monckton did not issue a writ he (defendant) would issue a writ against plaintiff. The dishonoured bills were drawn by Strawbridge and only endorsed by plaintiff for Slrawbridge’s accommodation. Mr Strawbridge could not remember how many bills were endorsed by plaintiff. The action had nothing to do with politics. He sympathised with the defendant uot being the selected candidate of the Opposition, after putting up such a good fight previously, aud could understand his being wild, but he had no right whatever to malign defendant because he was the chosen candidate. His Honour summed up lucidly, aud made the 28 questions which he was submitting clear to the jury. The jury retired at 4.15 p.m. and returned at 5.40 p.m. with the following 1. Did the plaintiff carry on the business of a farmer aud stock dealer ? —Yes. 2. Did the defendant speak to one, Leslie Skerman, of aud concerning the plaintiff as a farmer and stock dealer the words in the first cause of action mentioned ? —• Yes. 3. Were the said words false and malicious ? —Yes. 4. Were the said words delamatory of the plaintiff in his business ?—Yes. 5. Did the words mean that the plaintiff was in pecuniary difficulties aud that he was unable to pay his debts or not worthy of commercial caedit ? —Yes. sa, Was the defendant in speaking to Leslie Skerman as he did, actuated by express malice against the plaintiff ? —Yes, 6. What damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover in respect of this cause of action ? -£2OO. 7. Did the defendant speak to one, Rowland Young of and concerning the plaintiff as a farmer and stock dealer the words in the second cause of action mentioned ? —Yes. 8. Were the said words false aud malicious ?—Yes. 9. Were the said words defamatory of the plaintiff in his husiuers ?—Yes, 10. Did the words mean that the plaintiff was in pecuniary difficulties and that he was unable to pay his debts or uot worthy of commercial credit ?—Yes. 11. What damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover in respect of this cause of action ? £2OO. 12. Did the defendant speak to one, Stanley Beattie, of and concerning the plaintiff as a farmer and slock dealer the words in the third cause of action mentioned ? —Yes. 13. Were the said words false and malicious ? —Yes. 14. Were the said words defamatory of the plaintiff in his business ?—Yes. 15. Did the words mean that the plaintiff was in pecuniary difficulties aud that he was unable lo pay his debts or not worthy of commercial credit ? —Yes. 10. What damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover in respect ol this cause of action ? 17. Did the defendant speak to one, John David Howell, of and concerning the plaintiff as a farmer aud stock dea’er the words in the fourth cause oi action mentioned ? —Yes. 18. Were the said words false and malicious ? —Yes. 19. Were the said words defama-

tory of the plaintiff in his business ?—Yes,

20. Did the words mean that die plaintiff was in pecuniary difficulties aud that he was unable to pay his debts or uot worthy of commercial credit ? —Yes.

21. What damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover in respect of ibis cause of action ? 22. Did the delendant speak to one, Robeit Richard Martin, of aud concerning the plaintiff as a farmer aud stock dealer the words in the fifth cause ot action mentioned ?—Yes.

23. Were the said words false and malicious ?—Yes.

24. Were the said words defamatory of the plaintiff in his business ? —Yes.

25. Did the words mean that the plaintiff was in pecuniary difficulties and that he was unable to pay his debts or not worthy of commercial credit ? —Yes.

25a. Was the defendant in speaking to Robert Richard Martin as he did, actuated by express malice against the plaintiff ? —Yes. 26. What damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover in respect of this cause of action ? j 6.20. Total damages ,£670, with costs as in one action with second counsel, and disbursements.