ALLEGED LIBELS.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LII, Issue 58, 2 April 1909, Page 4

ALLEGED LIBELS.

G. V. PIiARCE v. G. SYMES. The eases Pearce v. Symes (claim fur £SO damages for alleged libel) and Symes V. Pearce (claim for £250 damages for alleged libel) were continued at tilt! Wuiiguuui Supreme Court on Tuesday. W. Rciiuiiischncidor, manager for planstill', corroborated the plainlill's evidence regarding the examination of the animal referred to. Symes was of a vcTy excitable nature and, when iu a passion, said things he would not otherwise say. To Mr Cohen : Had always been on neighbourly terms with Symes. Alter tlie bullock' incident witness examined the beast and discovered that it did not belong to Pearce. Reported this to Pearce. May have thought Pearce treated Symes abruptly. Pearce might appear abrupt to strangers, but witness bad not found him so. Would not say Symes was more excitable than the ordinary farmer was. For the defence.

Bert Symes, who was a farmer at Waitotara in partnership with his brother Alfred, said in connection with the sund land, that in November last Pearce fenced in 30 acres of good land and notified witness that he intended to graze 30 head of cattle on the sand land. Witness objected to this, as 10 head would have been a fair number. On April 3rd, ut the AVaverley sale yards, asked Pearce to remove the .cattle. Had previously seen .Ueiiuiuschneider, who had agreed to remove cattle. On that occasion Pearce came up just as the conversation was concluded, and -asked : "What is the mattery" Witness replied: "I have been asking your manager to remove your cattle." Pearce exclaimed : "Have you h s been putting your heads together 1" . On a later date, at the Waverley yards, Pearce told him, at the conclusion of an argument, that he (witness) needed to have the police put on him. On November 10th last witness was driving 00 head of cattle along Parson's road, when he was met by Pearce and Reiniiiiisclnieidcr. The former rode into the middle of the mob and looked round, after which witness heard Pearce say, " Thai's mine." Pearce then rode up to witness and said : " A bullock of mine's here." Witness replied : " It's a mistake ; go and have another look." Pearce said it was no mistake, and asked witness to have a look. Witness replied that there was no need, as he was suve it was his own. Pearce asked to have the bullock put in a yard, but witness replied that there was no need and told Pearce to have another look, pearce replied : " You refuse to put tho bullock in the yard or have a look." Witness replied : "' If it's coming to that 1 don't refuse to do either of them," and thereupon rode up to the bullock with Pearce. j Witness said : " Can't you see that's my I punch-hole '!" Pearce still said it was his bullock, and witness said he would ask Pearce's brother to examine the brand, and Pearce then said he hadgto look round his paddocks and catch the mail train. Gilbert Pearce examined the bullock carefully and said tho earmark was witness's. Witness then told Gilbert Pearce that his brother claimed the beast. Gilbert Pearce replied: "If George claimed it on appearance I would say he was right as he is very smart among cattle ; in fact 1 don't know a smarter man. If he claims it on earmark he has made a mistake." Reimiuschneider, after examining 3 the bullock, was positive it waa Mr Pearce's. At the concluiion of a political meeting, witness asked Pearce.lor an apology. He (witness) said he 'would give i'S to the Patea llospital if Pearce could prove that the beast had his earmark. When he wrote the first letter to the Patea Press he did not wish to injure Pearce politically but merely to obtain an acknowledgment that Pearce had made a wrongful

accusation. Witness kept the second letter back till after the election as he had been told that the first letter had

injured Pearce politically. He denied that he was hot-headed or quarrelsome. To Mr liarnicoat: His reasons for writing to the paper was to clear hi-i character. He felt that he hud been branded a thief by Pearce. The publication of witness's letter may huve injured Pearce somewhat, but the Patea Press did not have a large circulation. There would be nothing strange in Pearce having one of witness's bullocks among his own or witness having one of Pearce's. When Pearce spoke of witness not being responsible for his action he thought Pearce meant he was mad. When ottering the challenge to Pearce, witness knew he was betting on a certainty. To Mr Cohen : Did not ask O'Reilly or anvone else to vote against Pearce. Walter Best, a farmer at Waverley, said he had known Symes for 11 or 12 yijurs, and had found him to be a straightforward, hard-working farmer. He never found him hasty. Alfred Symes, brother of the plaintiff, said that on reading Pearce's letter in

the Patea Press, he understood Pearce to mean that Bert Symes was mentally unlit to conduct his uusiness. It i»as ridiculous to think that Pearce was mjured politically by defendant's letter. (Iu the occasion of the inspection of tne bullock, Reiininsehiieider said ''any common workman could have treated your brother worse than Pearce lid." To Mr Barnicoat: Had never heard anybody say that defendant was weakminded. Advised his bro;'i,; to take action against Pearce. After counsel had address ■ 1 the Court. II is Honor reserved judgir cat.—Chromcie.