SUPREME COURT—CIVIL SITTINGS.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5135, 7 September 1877, Page 3

SUPREME COURT—CIVIL SITTINGS.

Thursday, September 6. (Before His Honor the Chief Justice.) THE WAKA MAORI LIBEL CASE. His Honor delivered his charge to the jury at considerable length. He pointed out that the issues to be submitted to the jury were— Did the defendants maliciously print and publish of the plaintiff the words in the Maori language set forth in the first count of the declaration ; and also in the English language, as disclosed in the second count of the declaration ? Were the said words defamatory of the plaintiff ? Were the words set forth in the first aud second counts true; and is the plaintiff entitled to any, and if so, what damages ? He dwelt for a considerable time on the question raised as to the credibility of the witnesses examined on behalf of plaintiff; and in allusion to Mr. Sheehan’s professional connection with Mr. Russell, he said that the difference between the instructions for drawing the leases and the actual leases themselves involved this —the Maoris were to occupy fifty acres of the block with a fluctuating tenure, that is to say, they might have one fifty acres one year and another fifty acres the next, whereas in the lease they were tied down to a particular portion. Another discrepancy was that the instructions gave Mr. Russell the right to cut as much timber as ho wanted for the use of himself and family ; but in the lease he had permission to cut the timber and sell it. He (the Chief Justice) mentioned, however, that he could well understand how discrepancies of the kind might arise, and that a professional gentleman might not strictly carry out the instructions of his client on questions of an extremely complicated nature. His Honor addressed the jury at considerable length, his speech extending over several hours. At twenty minutes to four o’clock the jury retired to consider their verdict, and after mature deliberation returned a Verdict for plaintiff on all the issues, damages £6OO, which, of course, carries costs. The Court then adjourned.