DAMAGING FOR THE EDITOR.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2133, 23 January 1880, Page 3

DAMAGING FOR THE EDITOR.

The ’ following were the principal* issues in 'the 1 libel’ case of Anderson V/ Kirkhride, as answered by the jury at the civil sittings of the Supreme Court, Wellington:—Did defendant print and publish of ! and’ ‘concerning'thel plaintiff in the “ R.angitikei Advocate” the words, set forth in the'declaration ?—Yes. Are said word^' 1 defamatory of plaintiff - Yes.’ !; : Are !ithe ! allegations; of fact in alleged dibel true of; the.? several matters following, j that; is. to say, was plaintiff apprehended and placed, under, restraint and charged, and liberated as in Sedohd. plea’ Alleged ?■ —Yes/ 'Did piaintiff as sault and - bedt 'one Richard Cobden Eushy,' and was 1 the plaintiff'committed for trial as alleged?—Yes. Was plaintiff in employment of one Thomas McKensie, and,- while {in; t such employment, was; plaintiff ,a person of drunken and dissipated habits Py-rYos; during.', the, latter part of such' employment he : was a person of drunken habits, but he did not threaten McKenzie. ; Did plaintiff. residetKatothOi .town.of Wanganui and; contract; debts,- and did be. leave -the., said, tpwUj paying such-debts, and sucli debts never been paid ? . —Yes.’' u Was ’plaintiff arrested ‘ and ahd convicted at Wanganui as alleged Substantially,: -Yes/ Did plaintiff unlawfully i illtreat his wife at Wanganui-,,as alleged, and was the assistance of the police constable procured,, plaintiff charged at Wellington and convicted as alleged?—-Yes, Is plaintiff, and was he many August,; 1879, in,the habit of drinking alcoholic, liquors, very hard as alleged,, and Was 3 EiS’'Health thereby affected as alleged? —He was so at various times up to ,29th July. 1879. Did plaintiff illtreat his wife as alleged ? —Yes. Is plaintiff, as a journalist, and as editor of the “ Evening Chronicle ” newspaper, generally known and reputed to be a very scurrilous writer, in the habit of making edarsfe pbfsoriaf attacks in the said “ Evening Chronicle’’ newspaper upon persons who may happen to differ with . him ~in, politics ?prVcs. fa the alleged libel, so Tar’as' it- is * matter of comment, fair comment upon the acts, conduct, and Writings:of the plaintiff ? on the acts «and writings, of the plaintiff arc justified so far.as.'the article complained of r is concerned. What ’Stun,' if any, is : plaintiff entitled to recover from defendant ?—None.