MONCKTON V. BROWN.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIII, Issue 1074, 25 November 1911, Page 3

MONCKTON V. BROWN.

[To The Editor.]

Sir, —My attention has been directed to some statements made by Mr Byron Brown at an election meeting at Eevin (as reported in the Horowhenua Chronicle), with reference to the slander action Monckton v. Brown. As I acted for Mr Monckton in every step of the legal proceedings, I give an unqualified denial to Mr Brown’s statement that a writ of sale was issued against his property. The fact is that judgment was pronounced against Mr Brown on August 30, but the formal entry of the judgment was postponed at his solicitar’s request, in order to save Mr Brown the small additional expense which that step would involve. It was assumed by both Mr Brown’s solicitor and myself that it would be quite unnecessary to formaily enter judgment, but in this we were, mistaken. I certainly understood that Mr Brown treated the judgment against him as being, to him, a comparatively trifling matter. After the amount of costs payable by Mr Brown (,£159 gs. qd.) was ascertained 1 made application in the usual course of business in such matters, through Mr Brown’s solicitor, for a cheque. The communications made to me in response rendered it evidently necessary to persuade Mr Brown that the judgment against him involved a liability on his part to pay. Why a ‘‘sportsman” should feel aggrieved because, having “called the tune,” he should be asked to “ pay the piper ” is not easy to understand. But the fact remains that I louud it necessary to resort to that “ gentle pressure” which is proverbially regarded (when applied by a Dwyer) as the guide to reasonableness. Judgment was not entered until September 22. Mr Brown asked for ti'o- ! o pay part of the judgment, a.i.i ii, s solicitor aud 1 discussed a modus viveudi, and he made a propos .1 which I submitted to Mr ,'l.nick;on by letter, viz., that Mr B own should pay the taxed costs and £230 on account of the damages awarded by the jury, and Mr Brown should have till December 1 (the date which Mr Brown suggested as suiting his own convenience) to pay the balance. In response to my letter, Mr Mouckton (on September 26) telegraphed to me as follows :

“All right, let Brown have the concession mentioned in

your letter. —Monckton.” The matter was adjusted accordingly. Now where is Mr Brown’s grievance ? Where he sowed malice and slander, he reaped mercy. He should never have defended the action in the way he did. Had he expressed regret and withdrawn uis aspersions on Mr Monckton, instead of inviting an action and trying to “bluff” his slanders through before a jury, he would have had to pay a very much smaller cheque than he has already paid. The public will be able to judge whether Mr Brown has or has not had knightly treatment.

The jury decided the other question, and it need not be further discussed.

I am sure that no one who knows Mr Moucktou will be surprised at his giving his opponent every sporting chance. I may add here that the cheque paid by Mr Brown to his solicitors doubtless included their costs. The cheque which I received on behalf of Mr Mouckton on September 28, was for 9s qd, not 8s 3d, as Mr Brown would lead his hearers to suppose. The expenses of the action were naturally heavy as Mr Mouckton had to pay substantial costs of preparing lor trial, two counsel at the hearing, and many witnesses, also jury and Court fees, and it is well-known that the costs allowed by the Court scale never indemnify a successful litigant, in this case they fell far short of doing so. Mr Browu, 1 am informed, has complained that Mr Monckton threatened to sell up his (Mr Brown’s) motor car. The statement (it made by Mr Brown) is entirely incorrect. The only reference to Mr Brown’s motor-car made in the matter was made by Mr Browu himself, in what was practically a defiant invitation to Mr Mouckton to sell it up —an invitation which, needless to say, was not accepted. To have taken away Mr Byron Brown's motor car just before the elections would have been as poor a joke as removing his garments .vhile he was bathing ! Mr Browu may rest assured that, except of his owu good grace and courtesy, he places the use of his car at Mr Moucktou’s disposal ou December 7th, Mr Browu will be in undisputed possession of it ou that day. C. B. MORISON. Wellington, November 24.