SUPREME COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XXXXV, Issue 58, 9 March 1903, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

♦ | Fkiday, 6th March, 1003.—Before His Hon ir, Mr Justice Conolly. EVENI G HITTING. i HUrSON V. MOIU UJN '(Continued).' CIVIL BUSINESS, CLAIM FOU AND SLANDER. Mr Barton for plaintiff; Mr Samuel (with Mr Malon-) for defe .d u t. On the Court resuming at 7 p.m, the cross-oxamination of John Irwin, by Mr Saoiu 1, was cmtiuued.

Witn ss said he believed that ou night defend int was all.-g ?d to have gone into an h >tql at a late hour he had oeea elsctel acting-Miyor. d at-m nt created no gr.at stir in tbe congregatioa, Tne minister inferred thai the Btrough Oouncillors wt-ro as bad as the young men cjnc.;nied iu the but'glu-y. Tnu inci lnt tho idifference between the parties. At the managois' meetiug, prior to the ip3niog of thj new chuich, defendant brought up the queß'ion of leltiug seats, though thu mattur had been settled at the previou-i meeting. Mr Morison would not yiald to the majority, and ea. led Mr Hu sou a humbug. Could not reoiembar if Mr Hutsou expr. ss 'd hims If as antagonistic lo pew rorits. Mr Hutson had no vote on the but siid, " In tho interesc of those who coull not sit out a service on tha bite seits, he would bring the uuUer befo-e the coiigregation. Tbe managers had decided against pew rents, there was no humbug ab mt that." Mr Morison retorted, " That's a lie!" Mr Hutson remarked that you could c-xpect little else from Mr Morison. I cannot remember hi t exact words, but what I uuderstood him to mean was that Mr Morison had overstepped the bjundo of decency. 1 rccaivei tne letter address.d to the churoh session. The ses-iion consists of the elders and the miuister. There was c msiderable discusiiou regarding certain rules of the church, Mr Bat ton objected that Mr Samut-l could not Cioss-rxamiue witness as to tbe construction to be placed on tbe tuls of the ciiUrch. The rules printtid, and could bj put ia. After argument, the rules of order w re put in, and Mr Barton asked Hi* Honor to ru'e that the letter to tbe clerk of tha session was not privilege under rule 79, notwithstanding rule 27. Also th it it was not ornp iteot for witness to construe tie rules before Oourt. His Honor took a note of Mr B irton's application.

Examination continued: I a copy of the letter to the Presby'ery, and a ri ply to Mr Morison that the matter was beyond the jurisdiction of ihe 8633100, The original letrer was not sent to the Presbytery. Mr Morison has sine; sent a letter t > the Pi'tsby'.ery, and that is right. Do not remember having a conversa' ioa with the two Mr Mori-ions' m ar the Loan k Mercantile, when I said, " Tho pr.ip»r way was t ) give Mr Hutson a good report and get him takcu by some one else." I give Me Moiison credit for being au honest inau. I imply no'hing against his honesty now, except in church mittera. My idea was that ha (Horisjn) had taken a down on Mr Hutson without sufficient cause, and was going to privent bis getting a church e'sewhere.

To Mr B irton : I did not advise Mr Hutson should ba sint away. I gavn him (ttoriso i) credit at that time for hones; feeling. I that we should work together, aud get th-) new church op n;d, and kiep ihe congres;atioa together. I canoot s<y whan the canvei s icion took place.

Edwa<d o■ca'* Amoore : I romember hav.ng a conversation with Msnson abju;M.y, 1901. Mr Bimu.il objected that tho par•iculars sia'.oi October.

Mi' Birtin Ksknd l-.ave bu' his lions;' refu;eJ, acd alto refused t.> allow qucstio:s aa to whit was Slid on other d ties not particularise I. Mr Barton siid he would not ask this wituii-s any fu.-th r qaeitions. John Mickay, mannger of the Cooperative Store, Stra'Lrd: Remember i conversa aoi ou thi 9oh Njvember with Mo isoo. He came in'.o mv ofti-i ind sii lhß wishei t) see m». I said, well, what is it. ? He -ai 1 he would like to tee me iu private, and we wont ou" into tha middle of a quirter acre section, He showed me a letter he hid written ad Iresajd to the clerk of session, which was similar to tbe one Mr Barton read in Oourt, couc'ied in the same language. He aske Ime in reference to i r , and I advised him not

;o send it. We diacuseel church matt rs for fully two hours, ha doin}; th-j most of thi talking. I asked him if he considered na was doing his duty as a Christian. He siid yes, he c msidered he vtas iu duty bound to expose Mr Hu son, as be wis unfit to be a minister, and ha considered h ■ was only doing his duty in preventing him from doing in any other place what he hid done in Stritford. He also told me if the Presbytery and session would no d-al with the matter, he would publish it io the i.e .spapers I advi-ei him not to do so, as the mittir wa< libelluui, but if h'a wa<> diiermin <d to go on had b tter consult f'om l authirity that could he raplied up, aid kiow the ground on which he was standing. He would not take my advice, aud Siid he would lay the bare fac s befon 'h:m 0 i another cccasiori M i iso i came to my i-ffije and s>il h i In 1 Ivard tin' 1 was very much annoyed with him for the statement ho had m -de a", the Presbytery meeting on tin 15 li Jan 1 asked him what it was, and h > sai 1: "You gave ma authority to state that it would be better for Mr H I'.a.in to leive Stratford." I looked hrn stra'ght, in the face and ho sa d, "is it not s >?" I replied no ; I neith gave you or any other min authority to me mi uam •iu connec'.ion with a stilemoat th it I was not prep .red to make mynolf. tie thf;ii i-aid you a>e uot aug y with ! iu" ? I tiaid no; the oaly ig I liavj towards you is one of sup'eme pity. In the course of conversation i'f:erwardi=, ho said at the Presbytery m 'ating Mr Hutsou had been s'ubborn aud unt'deliu;; when pi'i>s<-d by his br.ither ministers to allow the chirgus to be withdrawn. lie then sa : d hu had it on good autlniry that such a mm as Mr l-lutsou was u .lit to lis a minist-L'i', I uud.rstooil ho lial consulted sooioono else aud j;ot whitlu cousidere-l a reliable opinion. Iu July 1900 I was at Uorisou's house.

[ [Aagunumt hero tooic [dice ms to wh.'tlier evidence should lo giv.u of What took place prior to iheslm v rB yiveii no'ic > of. Mr Bar'on said ho would i<ot pross tho point..] | Wineas continued : I was a member of tin se.?si .n prior to ihe two elm ges i iailo by three in wagers ag linsi, clm cufcudant, Defendant was uhargeil supafately. Wo dealt with that, charge, and our finding was that Mr Morison had been guilty of using improper ov disrespectful language

towards tie minister, Mr HutaODt Every member of the session, togethei with the assessors, tiied to bring about a reconci'iti'ion. Mi* Hutson extendid his h iii i to defendant and offered to freely forg t and forgive any diaputaa be'.wto i ;lem. D f-ndint refused to shake h.nd-\ I rtmember a cong'ega'ionul mee ing on or about Fubruury 3d, of t.is year. Mr Mnifon v a ■ thre, and Mr Hutson, Defendant wished to ppeak, and asktd Mi- Huts■>.* to withdraw certain statements. Iha statements were not enu- . raorated. Mr Hutson replied that c rtain charges h id been .Hade, and unit SB these were withdrawn, and an up ology olfor-d, the matter would have to go to t u .e 'Jivil Oourt. T.) his (I >' or; Morison was reprimands! in the at mi of the session, by the Moder tor, the R ;v. Charles MaDjnald, W* Alley. To Mr S .inuol: The Ber. Oharlss McD ;nttld (Wiverley), Riv. Phillips (vlan .ia), Rev. Hutson (Stratford), Messrs McFarl ine (llawera), Handy (N T mv Plymou hj), Amoore and Mackay (S.r.itfor.i) consituted that session, L'h * i on-residents wera appointed a we l s'ou by tin I'resbytnry. The Stratford a 6ii n a-ked that assessors should !>< app li'ited. The ippoin'ment of aaseos )■ 8 was iu the bands of the Piesbyte<y. Have known defendant nine or tun a-s. He his been a number of the congregation to which I belong. 110 h s fur a number of years been an 1 i tei«er The first conversation i rel'orr-.1 to was eirly in November, I jm be F ore the moxtifg of the General A«:iubly tf the Ohuich. I was an > eld«r. lie lid not s»y he oame to me i asaneldar, I did not take notes of the i convocation. 1»m trusting entirety ' to memory. Some of the words ara th > 'dual words he used, and are engrav. drml h i tablet of my memory. I ' am p'vpared to swear that the words I fail hi used are the actual worda. i Morison gav i no explanation why be - felt bound to pursue the course ■ he was tiken, His remarks were to* - wards the end of the conversation. He did no r . outer into any particular uto I the reisoa why. He was talking about > bim-elf in ist of the tim\ aud his > griev'tnce". Mr Mo'ison did not aay * that Mr Hutson hid talked about him, and trie! to injure him, and be felt it ' his duty to takd action agtinst him. I - vole n) lieensa. Ido not take an active > part in prohibition, and I hare no » real >n to consider Mr Morison other . thin a temperate man, Exoepting I these church matters, I knew nothing * wrong a')ou". Mr Mo.issn. The converse ion took pi tea in the afternoon, i I am store manager, and I was keeping an ee on the work of the store. I i never avid considering all the oiroun- , stances, I h iva no hesitation in saying ' b that a chicige of ministers is desirable, f and you have my permission to make s what use you like of that. Morieon a wanted me to father such a statement, , but I decidedly refused to do ao. I r bad baen rem irkably careful all (he r -ifternooo, and I said you oan make use , of anything that I have said. I said ) this is a bantering way, as he was leavt ing. I hid slid nothing to lead him 0 to '■» ink I thought; it desirable a change t if ministers si ou'd take plaoe. A s c'ange of ministera would wreck I. the congregation. It would have J had the same effect then. Mr 3. tD. Morison never came to me with a pap?r to sign asking for a change of ministers. He never came to r me suggesting that the congregation tf should do so. I have no recollection of Mr r J. D. Morison speaking to me on the e subject. I never sill "We had better v have tbe devil we know than one we - do not." Morison cima to me two a days after tho meeting of the Presbytery and I am sure he used the worda r " that he had it on good authority that ii puah a tnaa as Mr Hutson was unfit to be a mil is'er." I understood the - tiuth >ri y w>s someone whose opinion lie VriJujd, and that the opinion was " giv.'U on a cise stated by him. Mr > Hu'son's theology has never entered a into tbn discus-ion. Defendant's letter not f'l th tiiß irtij cti- nto Mr Hutson. c ti ■ givd m • th i impres-iin tt at he hi) p'lt a csi to sjuh one. I told *h m it-was no use coining with verbal r a^atbut to pu'. his objections in r wriing and they would be considared. To Mr Rart n: His charges were . lceidy in writing, and I advised him u oto ir his letter up as it was libellous. To his Honor: Id) not think I ever a aiftet Morison whit he meant by aaye ing Mr Huts >n's conduct was likely to f cause a breach of the piaci. e The Oourt adj mrced at 10.15 p.m. a to 10 a.m on Saturday. t Satobdat, Match 7oh, 1903. s; The Oourt resumed at 10 a.m. Mr Samuel applied to amend state--4 meat for defeuoe, pleading privilege aa 3 to ptngraphs 9 and 10, in regud lo } which plaintiff's c -unsel had obtained > | t >avo to alter date*. Tne re ism he ' m.de the application was as different > da'ei ware state i it was a different '■ case to answer. ' Mr B irton and add it was 1 too late tonmend now, " His Honor siid Mr Stmusl had no 1 pr. vious opp>rtunity. ' Mr Barton said the oase was the 3 h ime as before, and the amendment he f had been allowed to mike only trans--3 pojed the in respect t) the pira--3 graphs which had been put in to the 3 .\-roiig pir(graph* by mistake. His Honor said, as at present ad- > vised, lhat as regards the conversation them was no privilege, but tbe alleged ' li'iellous letters wore privileged, aa al--3 most the last words wit ies« (Maokiy) said to ihe plaintiff wero " If y>u have '■ any-hiii *to say you must put it io t «riiing." > After so ue further argument His k Hor or alio ved the am ndment. Mr Bar'oii then called Bunj imin Hutson, minister of tbe Prrtsbyierian Ohurob, who said he was ' ordainel in Octobir, -4884. He was 1 cilled to the Piosbyt"rian Ohurob, 1 Sr.rutford, in Match, 1895. Things urogiessid in tho church very 1 favourably up to about six months ago, bu'. for the pant five years every'.hi ug had progressed most harmoniously. Then cauia a peri. id, of my two ye irs, of oim'iuuoiis misunderstanding between be manag-iri, and during the last year op"n hostility from one party of man•geistiwardsthe other. Tha managers wei-o alxait equally divided, and there was bit/or opp >siti m from ons i f the ;iu tiijs to myself, The party bos'ile to hw ministers aie now out of offi:aand ; u not claim membership of the con<{re* i? ttion except by th'i forbearance of the uiinisH-r.ind party in piwer, inasmuch is th-'y hava csssod to attend fbe fervictis and refused to support ordinances. Meaning 1 In* general finances «f the I'hurrth. This applies e'peciallyt'i three persons fcnt> liofondan'', his brother, and Mr Lilley. Mr Sunuo! said th ; s meant cxc muaunicatibn. Hefarring to paragraph 8 (f the {Gontimwl on pagt

statement of claim paragraph 4, a direct c. arge was brought by two mnnageis against Mr Lilley. There wis a charge, or collective charges, laid against the Messrs Morison, by three managers, for divisive coutses, meaning trying to create a division amongst thg congregation, and a separate charge agaiDst the 1 defendant by the same three managers. The general cbargecontaiced six clauses five agaicst the brothers Morison, and the sixth ckuse particularly charging defendant with using disrespectful lan-, guage towards the minister. The charges were enquired into by the session court, referred to 1 night, on, the 16th October, 1902. I was one of j the court by right as Moderate r of the church session; but owing to the few that partiality might be imputed to me, and being desirous of establishing peace, we applied to the Presbytery tint the j Rev. Charles McDonald, of Waver ley, j be appointed Moderator, as he was; furthest a way . Thtre was a meeting of the Sunday School teachers between. the charges being laid and the hearing. Mr Morison was present at that mest- ; Lag. That was the meeting in Ju'y. The charge against Mr Lilley was laid in May. Mr Lilley had been Sunday School superintendent. He letigned a few weeks before the charge was laid. In his resignation be siid bis: intention was to cejS3 Sibbifch school j work. At the July meeticg Mr Morison wished to move a vote of coofi-. dence in Mr lilley. I ruled it out of order, seeing Mr Lilley was concerned, In a case sub judice. I siid "We cannot deal with that qu-stion now, ; Mr Morison, seeing that a charge has been laid against Mr Lilley ; he is now onder discipline." The words. " under j discipline " were used by a slip of the, tongue at the time, and should be ueed only after the (charge is in the hands ■■ of the accused party. The charge had, sot then been "definitely framed and placed in Mr Lilley's hands. Mr Soell knew of the charges, but I mean that | he had not been cited. The reason of | the delay was that we were a small; session and we referred the matter,! being of each great importance, to the j Sew Plymouth session, and they took some time to reply. I should have said "a charge was pending," but I was taken by surprise, and not wishing to discuss the matter before the Sunday School teachers I made the slip mentioned, for whiob I apologised. I remember on the 16th Ootobsr I had a conversation with the defendant in the room adjoining that in which 1 the session was sitting. It was a hrge room. Messrs Irvine and Smart were standing in the porch with the door ajar. At the other end of the room there were several person?, six or eight. I can recall Messrs Brayshaw, W. Morison, J. D. Morison, Huggett, Lilley, Phillips, and Mesdames Lilley and Taylor. Tbe room is an old church 45 feet by 18. I was standing within 10 faet of the porch. Mr Morison came to me and 6poke; he ssid "Ton brought a charge against Mr Lilley at the teachers' msetieg." I replied, "I brought no charge, I simply stated a charge had bsen brought." Mr Morison answered " You're a liar," emphasising the last word coissiderably. I siid, " Mr MorisoD, take care you do; ot <e xp;, or try me too far." He acswtred,." You • stupid ass." I replied " ccme up and repsat those words before these witnesses." I walked to the other end of the Hal), where the others were seated and standing round the fire! place. I said, " I want Mr Morisoa to repeat a statement he has mado down ! the other end of the Hall." I repeated the words I had used. He said, "It i is a lie." I turned and walked away, and Mr Morison followed me. He said, "Why are you always talking about! fighting V His Honor said be could not sfe what had taken place could ba slander; It was merely abuse, and an unfoitunate thing. It was a personal squabble, bat not actionable. Mr Samuel suggested that some arrangement might be come to to settle the matter. His Honor said he thought it a pity something of the sort c;u!d not be done. Mr Samuel said he would do all in his power to bring about an understanding. Enough had surely been said about the nutter, and proceeding farther could only do harm and promote further discontent in tbe church. His Honor said the language usod / by defendant was exceedingly gross, and if u-cd to any other man the user would probably have been knocked down. Such language was altogether unjust fiable, but it was cot slander, only abuse. They must bring something in regard to his office. Mr Barton said be was prepared to do this. Mr Samuel siid this was probably the wors'j incident of all the misunderstandings. Mr Barton denied this. MrSxtnuel said he would take tbe responsibility of off ring to settle the case. His client had n-.t instructed him ta do so, but he thought Mr Hudson had had his opportunity of putting his side before tin pu'.dic and the case had gono far enough. Mr Barton stid he w.ik beiuj; placed in a very ombirassiug position. All that his learned friend was saying wou'd be reported in tho newspapers and ha wished to p.;iv-t out ti.ai i.is client h«d already d >ue f.very!hi.ig in bin power to effect a reconciliation,lh>> lad that in evidence, but t!io defendant refused to m: et hi-i advances. As regards the question cf standi r lu'.-s client had been called si per.ester of the truth and i? lie was tint h > ccrtaiely was urfio for his nr.; i=te:ir.l position. Ho rould csr.ceivc i.o more saiious slander on a rr,mi in the p:sition of his clienr. They had scan r'.r.i be bad only recours •to th- <! art ..fv-r J-iug a'l he could to oH'ect, or hr, said in his pvider.c ■, " establish pea':. ." If his client lost, his case ho was a ruined man, as according to tho rules of his church be would never receive another call if he wont to law, so h had to choso between f-ufl'ering in silence the treatment he had been receiving or go t-j tho Court for a reini.'dv and ruin his futute piospccts iu the Church,

Hia Honor said he cotilJ not conceive of any church having a rule depriving its ministers of their position if seeking a civil romedy for wrongs done. If it were so it would be a cruel< proceeding.

Mr Barton said that was exactly the cruel position in which hie client wag placed. He had been already threatened by the Moderator, The church was averse to ministers seeking a worldly remedy and it was wellknown that any minister going to law has absolutely no hope of getting anothercharge.

Mr Samuel said Mr Hutson had sought his remedy and if they now assured him that all imputations against bis professional rectitude was withdrawn and that there was no desire tc nake any imputations against him t ♦tic * should b' atta ;

lottlemeoft ,tj easy of attaii aent. Hi then suggested tba\ lis learned friend should comple-e his lamination, giviog bis client an opportunity of stating his caiP, and that then His Roror shou'd grant them a short adjournment to see if any settlement could be made.

' After some further argument in the course of <vhieh Mr 3irton said anyj lasting settlement of the matter would j be readily agreed to by his client. Mr I Hutson's examination was continued j ou that understanding. ! Witness, continuing, said Morison j ssked " why are you always talking j about fighting; I should not mind j bavin® a try with you myself." I replied " it is all very well for you to talk, j ycu can take your bullock whip to a i man, go into Couit, pay your fine as j you have done already, and go on with , your work the next day; I cannot, we j are not on an equality in these mattors. J again walked away from him. I remember a meeting about seat rents on the 18' hof March, 1901. i I spoke in favour, not of making! all seats in the church rent- j able, fcut in favour of giving overyj one, who wished, an opportunity to pay 1 for their sittings. The congregation was divided on the seat rent question.; One pirty was for all seats being free, j and tho other to allow these who wished j to rent seats, to do so, leaving the re- j mainder of tho seats free. I never; expressed any other opinion. I did not threaten to take the matter over the j heads of the managers to the congre- { ga' ion, and never did so. I have no, consciousness of any inconsistency in, connection with the seat rents. I never said Mr Lilly had created a scandal. I did not say he was unfit for the pogi- j tion of a Sunday school teacher. There was another meeting of Sunday school teachers in September. I made no statement of the sort at either meeting. I never said to Mr Lilly that defendant had bmdod with the publicans of Stratford so as to cust the me from the church. This aliud- s, as far as I know, to a statement made regarding other | persons than t' o defendant. I was ! speaking of prohibitionists, and defeni dau f , not being a prohibitionist, could | not have been included. I said to Mr Lilly, Mr McOonichie, and J. D. | Morison, who are all prohibitionists, '" You, by refusing to help by systematic j effort the funds of the church, are playing into the hands of the j publicans, who have swern to oust Ime out of Stratford." I deny having j said that defecdaot had resigned as a . manager of the church because he had som&thiogagai'.ist the constitution of the | church. I said something regarding i another parson which defendant has j mixed up with another statement, but ! it was not about tbe management; un- . til [ heard the defendant at the Presby- , tery and read the statement of claim, I .could not understand the statement, ; but I deny having on any occasion ever | said or done any thing calculated to 1 provoke a breach of the peace by raising my hacd to defendant. ' His Honor said probably witness was in the habit of gesticulating when ! preaching and speaking and his action | had been misunderstood. J The Court hose adjourned at 12.15 to | see if a settlement could be made. j SETTLED OUT OF COURT. On r.-enming nt 2.10 p.m., Mr. Bar(ton Eaid a ee'.tl m;on* had b;en arrived : at. | His Honor said ho was very pleased ' to hoar it. Mr. Barton eaid the terms were as foil ows: —The defendant uoreeesvedly withdrew all charges or imputations against the character or conduct of the plaintiff, and expressed his regret that any misunderstanding or unpleasantness should havo arisen between them. Each party would pay his own costs, and a juror wou'd be withdrawn. His Hcnor, when discharging the jury, said ho felt sure it would he quite as satisfactory to them as to himself [that a settlement had been airived.