Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

SUPREME COURT.—CIVIL

SITTINGS. Thursday, October 23. (Before his Honor Mr. Justice Richmond.) CARKEEK V. WILLIAMS. Mr. Travers, with him Mr. H. H. Travers, for plaintiff ; Mr. Izard, with him Mr. FitzGerald, for defendant. The following gentlemen were sworn in as a special jury -.—Messrs. T. W. Young (foreman), A. Jeffery, W. H. Davis, E. E. Zohrab, A. Tyer, Thos. Power, Henry Brittain, R. Burrett, John Hally, F. White, Wm. Bishop, and Captain Bendall. The action was one for the recovery of £I2OO for an alleged libel published on August 2, 1877. Plaintiff, Mr. A. W. Carkeek, was a surveyor, and defendant, Mr. G. W. Williams, was deputy-inspector surveyor for the district. It appeared from Mr. Travers’ opening that defendant in his official capacity dictated to a clerk in the office a letter to plaintiff which contained the said libel, and which made certain accusations against the plaintiff. This letter was copied into the letter book, and the contention was that the dictation of this letter and its preservation in the office letter book where it could be seen by others was sufficient publication to bring it within the law of libel. A lengthy discussion took place between his Honor and the bar upon this point of law, his Honor being of opinion that he could not rule dictation to an amanuensis to be publication of a libel. Eventually, his Honor retired to confer with the Chief justice, and on his return to Court said it would not be expedient to nonsuit the case, and that he should allow it to go to the jury. The case then proceeded, and Mr. Travers read the letter which contained the alleged libel, as well as other letters bearing on the case. He called the plaintiff and T. B. Armitage, Government clerk, as witnesses, and the case for the plaintiff concluded at 12.40 p.m. For the defence, the evidence of defendant and Morgan Carkeek, brother of plaintiff, was taken, after which a verdict for defendant was accepted by consent. The Court adjourned till 10 a.m. next day.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZTIM18791024.2.24

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5794, 24 October 1879, Page 3

Word count
Tapeke kupu
343

SUPREME COURT.—CIVIL New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5794, 24 October 1879, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.—CIVIL New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5794, 24 October 1879, Page 3

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert