Wednesday, 10th September. Before a special jury, Cridland v. Smith.
This was a civil action arising out of the same circumstances as the prosecution against Mr. Arthur Todd Holroyd for libel. Capram Smith, the printer of the libel, was the defendant, and an attampt was mad** to show that he had let the office to Mr. l.oe, but an affidavit was produced (Bled iw Court) in which he had described himself as the proprietor up_ to the sth April, and the attempt therefore failed. The learned Judge carefully pointed out to the jury that the case was very different in its features from the prosecution tried the other day, and, therefore, the jury must not permit themselves to be influenced thereby. It was different in the parties, in the pleadings, and especially so in the evidence — a defect in which, at the former trial, had been supplied. The jury found for the plah.tiff — damages one farthing. This case occupied the Court all day, and excited considerable interest.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZSCSG18450920.2.8
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume I, Issue 50, 20 September 1845, Page 2
Word count
Tapeke kupu
167Wednesday, 10th September. Before a special jury, Cridland v. Smith. New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume I, Issue 50, 20 September 1845, Page 2
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.
Log in