Supreme Court

South Canterbury Times, Issue 7064, 9 February 1893, Page 2

Supreme Court

TIM ABU— Wednesday, Feb, Bth. (Before Hie Honour Mr Justice Denniston,) The Court resumed at 10 a.m. CIVIL CASE. George Gonr id Primmer v. Peter Stewart, claim £725, damages for slander, libel and malicious prosecution. Mr Stringer (instructed by Mr Wilding), for the plaintiff; Mr Raymond (instructed by Mr Cuthbenson), for defendant. In the course of his cross-examination by Mr Stringer, defendant denied making several statements attributed to him by plaintiff. Mr Stringer on one or two points showed variations from his depositions in the Magis tralea Court. Defendant, in spite of Primmer, Wilding and Thomas to the contrary, denied that he admitted in Wilding’s office that ha gave authority to sell. Remembered Thomas making calculations, chiefly about the land sale, also about cost of harvesting; took no notice of that as he never agreed to bear the expense of harvesting. Said very little. The others were all talking and be hold his tongue. Yes, was like a lamb in a lion’s den. Persisted at the meeting that lie would have Primmer arrested when be found what bad become of the stuff. Never admitted, as Thomas and Wilding said, that he had got the value of the crop, less oast of harvesting. Never offered to carry oa Primmer for another year ; certainly not. From the date of receding the bilaace, December 1891 to September last, the case was in Ihe hands of his solicitor, who was instructed to find out what had become of the chaff. Did not think it was all found out yet. Thomas never warned him against prosecuting; be once said it would serve Primmer right. Denied Thomas’s evidence on that point absolutely, B. Hanks, farmer, Tiawald, heard Stewart tell Primmer not to dispose of any stuff without hie order. Mr Outhbertson came up and Stewart repeated that after consulting him.

J. Taylor out the chaff at different times, January to March, 35fc tons. Was paid £9 by M. Early, and the balance £5 by Primmer in 1892. There was very little wind that season. - J. Tait, R, Innes, and J. Bray, purchasers of chaff, 7 tone in all, were called to show that they paid Primmer and never beard of Stewart. Mr Stringer said plaintiff admitted all that, and that he did not inform defendant. B. Duncan and J. McCann were called to swear that Primmer and Stewart never in their presence conversed about a lien over the crops, as asserted by plaintiff. Mr Raymond proposed to call evidence to sh->w that plaintiff was a man with no reputation to injure, Mr Stringer objected ~this ought to have been given notice of to enable contrary evidence to be brought. Precedents were referred to, and His Honour ruled that the evidence would be admissible in mitigation of damages. Alfred Curtis. Ashburton, retired from business: Had been in three of the principal firms at Ashburton, and as manager of two of them. Had known Primmer ten years. Prior to September last Primmer’e reputation for honesty in the district was very poor indeed. Orossexamined : Primmer owes me money. lam a bit of a money-lender. I lent him money and have not got it all back again. Ho, l' am not sore about it,

Mr Stringer : Oh no, money-lenders never are, when they lose their money. 0. Purdom, groom, in the employ of plaintiff in December. 1890, stated plaintiff had sheep on two of the paddocks and horses on another, from which he harvested grass seed. They were there some weeks. To Mr Stringer : Could not say how many sheep there were. There might have been two—or more. Could not swear how many horses; more than two ; could not swear to more then three.

R. M. Outhbertson, solicitor, Ashburton, In March, 1891, met Stewart, Primmer, and Hanks, together. Stewart asked him if Primmer bad any right to sell the staff under under a lien. Said certainly not. Stewart turned to Primmer and said-—“ You hear that ? You are not to sell any of the stuff unless I say so.” As a result of an interview with Thomas and Wilding in the latter's office, Stewart and Primmer were sent for. Met Stewart and 'Thomas outside the office, and heard Stewart telling Thomas that if he could ascertain to whom Primmer had sold the chaff he would prosecute him. Primmer was then inside. Thomas replied 11 Leave him alone till I get this matter fixed up, your loss is nothing to mine. Ha has robbed me of £IOO ” —or words to that effect. All three went ia and saw Primer. Did not stay there long himself Some months later saw Primmer, and told him Stewart intended to push the matter, and might take criminal proceedings. Primmer said be had two witnesses, Duncan and McCann, who beard Stewart gave him permission to sell. Said if that was so he had nothing to fear. Cross-examined: Gould not say that the threat of criminal proceedings was not held over Primmer, but it was not pressed down on him. It was only mentioned once, when Primmer put it aside by saying he bad witnesses. Might have said to him in the street that ,e Peter was getting pretty nasty,” and he had better settle up ; could not remember. Certainly did not add to that “He has not a leg to stand on, bat all the same, he is determined to go for you,” This closed defendant’s evidence. Mr Stringer re-called Mr Wilding to rebut Curtis’s evidence as to character. Mr Wilding stated that for business purposes, before making a large advance on mortgage to him, be made many enquiries about Primmer, with perfectly satisfactory results. His reputation for honesty was good. To Mr Raymond : It was usual to make such inquiries. On the Tight lands of Ashburton a farmer’s character was all Important, as a reckless man could crop the laud cut in afa iv years. Bat he looked upon Primmer as a fool as a farmer, be had not sufficient capital and did not know his business. Witness believed there was nothing in a report that Primmer had been threatened with a prosecution by Mr Steadjon account of another lien fraud.

This closed the evidence, and at 4.30 counsel began their addresses to the jury. Mr Hay mono spoke nearly an hoar, Mr Stringer for three-quarters of an hour, and His Honour occupied forty minutes in presenting the principal points on both sides to the jury, who retired at 6 45. After an hour’s absence the jury returned to ask if the court could accept a verdict of the majority of II to 1. His Honour said that after a certain time he could accept a verdict of nine, but that time had not arrived. Counsel, however, might agree to accept the majority verdict. The jury retired, counsel conferred, agreed to accept the verdict, and the jury was recalled. Their verdict was that plaintiff did get permission to dispose of the crops, and they found him entitled to £3O damages.^ Mr Stringer moved that judgment be entered up for plaintiff. Costs were fixed on the lowest scale on the verdict, costs as for a jury of four, disbursements and witnesses expenses. The Court rose aud the session closed at 8 p.m.