ALLEGED SLANDER.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LII, Issue 190, 15 September 1909, Page 4

ALLEGED SLANDER.

TURKIXGTOX v. lIALL. "A Bid AMD RIDICULOUS JOKE." VERDICT i'OR THE DEFENDANT. The civil action lor £IOOO damages brought 'by Samuel Turkington, schoolmaster, of MaUoe, against \V. A. J. llall, a Mahoe farmer, for an alleged slander, was continued yesterday nioniing iu the Supreme Court, before .his Honor

All*. Justice Edwards. Mr. 1«\ JS. Bauino, KX_\, for plain till', Air. 11. Spence for defendant. llis Honor intimated that lie had decided against Mr. Spence on the .nonsuit point, and would cail upon the defence. In opening the defence Mr. Spence pointed out to the jury that tliey were not concerned with the question of whether the plaintiff took more carrots than he was entitled to, but only whether or not the words imputed to defendant were capable of a detamatory meaning, whether they accused Turk* ington of a crime for which he could be placed in the criminal dock. The carrot episode was really a very trivial matter. Defendant had' not used the word "thieving" except in reply to plaintiff's express invitation, "Then you aecuec me of thieving?" Defendant was led into saying "Yt's," qualilied by un explanation, it was this that plaintiff was seeking for as a foundation for a Islander action. "What malice there lad i>uc n in the transaction had been op Airkington's side. Turkington induced v.erds on which he sought heavy damages.

Defendant deposed that he bought iiis farm at Malioe in July of last year. Turkington offered to look after hi< farm until witness took possession.' There were four cows and a pig on the farm, and Turkington took the milk. Johnston gave witness the carrots ind mangolds on the farm. Johnston witness if Turkington could have a sack of carrots, or some for his horse, and witness replied that he could have a sack. When witness took possession ol the farm ail the carrots had gone. The fitfet quarrel witness had witn Turkington was when the lock on the school paddock gate was broken. This trouble was really between Turkington and 'lie school committee. The next thing witness knew of the matter was when Kis wife had 3s <id deducted for this lock from a milk account due to her. Later witness received a bill from Turkington, claiming payment for looking after the lormer s lanu at the rate of £2 2s per week, TuiA.,igton offered to take £4 4s in full settlement if the account .was paid immediately. (Bill produced and read.) Witness showed this account to several neighbors and mentioned :he carrots, but in doing so never used the word''•thieving.'-' Witness lived abort four chains from Turkington, who was his nearest neighbor. Turkington had plenty of opportunities of speaking to witness. Coming to the store episode, witness said that Turkington came into the store and said, "Good morning, gentlemen. Now, Mr. Hall, in the presence of these gentlemen, do you accuse me of taking your carrots from yoar paddock!" Witness replied, "Yes, you had authority to take one sack, aud what you took wore were mine." "Then you accuse mc of thieving your carrots?" a&kcd Turkington. "Yes, I do; replied witness. Turkington 'replied that the carrots were Mr. Johnston'6, and not witness's. Turkington then demanded an apology, which witness refused to give. Witness followed plaintiff out of the store.

Mr. Spence: What did you do? Witness: I wanted him to bit me. Continuing, -witness eaid. he called Turkington a "coward." Turkington's story of the school enquiry was not true. Witness did not call plaintiff a thief. When witness got the writ he went to plaintill and offered to give an apology if plaintiff would stay his hand, saying that it was a pity for neighbors to quarrel in this manner. Turkington refused, but added, *'lf you give mc an order for £-500, pay my 'ex's' as far as they've .cone, and publish an apology in the Taranaki papers, .1 will withdraw the writ." Witness refused. Lat*r, .plaintiff offered to settle the matter out of Court, as such a settlement would be cheaper. Plaintiff added, "I will write out a document, you can pay mc a lump sum and my expenses, aid you can put an advertisement in the papers." Witness referred Turkington to his solicitor. Before this happened, witness had offered to apologise for what had taken place in the store, and plaintiff had demanded £SOO.

i Cross-examined by Mr. lluumef Witness had written to Turkington asking iiiiu to "keep an eye" on tlw* cows until he took possession of the farm. A cow calved and a pig Jittered while Turkington was looking after tile farm, and plaintiff attended to these. Witness and Turkington had been on friendly terms, and saw each othsr frequently. Unfriendliness dated from the school lock episode, which witness had a "little hand in." 'He did not side with Mr. Astbury particularly. He had not said a -word to Turkington about the carrots before this, and said nothing to anybody about the carrots until he got the account for looking after the farm in May, 1909. Turkfngton did not make this claim until after the school lock episode, lie began to talk about the carrots when Turkington began to talk about the claim for looking after lie farm. He was annoyed with Turkington. The first person he spoke to was Astbury. He told Simpson to have -othing to do with Turkington because "he was no good.' He did not say iic had found Turkington out. He supposed if he said Turkington was no good he meant it. He also spoke to Bennett about Turkington because he was angry. He followed Turkington out of the store because he was angry "with the latter, lie wanted Turkington to hit him, "just for satisfaction," so he could hii back. His defiuition of a thief was a man who took .something that didn't belong to him. He had done his share in obtaining signatures to a petition with the object of having Turkington removed from his position of head teacher at the Malioe school. 11c admitted having wished to get Turkington out of the district. At the Education Board enquiry lie did not answer "Yes'' to Turkington's question, "Did you accuse me of stealing carrots?" He had answered, "Xo, I didn't." Robert Tait Johnston, farmer, of T.i»iranga, gave evidence of having sold a farm at Malioe to llall. He gave possession on lath July. 1!)08. On the 14lli he told Turkington that he could have some of the carrots. In a business conversation with Hall that night he told him that there were some carrots and mangolds nn the place, and that lie (Hall) could have them, with the exception of some that he had promised to Turkington. He might have said a, sack had been given away. He had received a. letter from Turkington asking about this transaction, and had replied that he had given the carrots and mangolds to Hall subject to plaintiff's right to take some of them. The letter was produced. To Mr. Biunne: Hail lived alongside Turkington a_ tew years, and tliey had 7>eeu good neighbors. David L. A. Astbury, a farmer, residing at Malioe. and chairman of the school committee, said it was rumored that he was threatened with a slander action. He gave the history of the locked gate. The school paddock was generally used as a horse-paddock by people attending functions at the hall. One night tliev found the gate chained and locked, and. acting upon instructions from him as chairman of the school committee. Hull cut the chain. He had known Turkington was looking aft«r Hall's farm, lie heard Hall and Turkington disputing at the door of the selioolhouse.

To Mr. Jlanme: .Since July last he had been trying to get Turkington out of the district, .and had said a couple of months earlier (hat ho intended to do it, Knowing .Turkington's peculiar temperament, they expeeled a "row" when Hall asked the H'hoolmnstov for I'Jiis Jls fid. Thev knew llk> man. and ! thought it as well that Hall should hare their "moral support/' They had a doubt about- Tnrki7iglon.'s veracity at times. Tljk Honor said that counsel was not giving the jury much credit for intelligence, for they were quite able to appreciate the whole case, i Counsel addressed the <!ourt at groat length, reviewing the evidence. Interruptions of each other's addresses were not infrequent. His Honor, in slimming up, remarked

that this case had been fought with an. amount of acrimony and a degree of irrelevancy that fortunately were rare in this Court. Not only had the parties seen Jit to use as much strong language us they could to each other, but the witnesses probably without any 'particular derive on their own part, had been characterised in language that had far exceeded what was justified by the circumstances. yi r . Astburv, he- ' cause he was chairman of the school j 1 committee, and because as chairman of' l the school committee he had disap-1 proved of the plaintiff ia the present ■ proceedings, and because he had ac-' eompanieii Hall when the latter went' 1 to sec. the plain,till", had 'been described i by counsel a-s a-"'pimp" and a "bully." lie disapproved of the use of such language to witnesses ou such small foundation. These, people had had a meeting of the school committee, of which . Hall was a -member. Hall had received 3 from Tnrkington a communication that 1 caused him to bo irritated. Turkington had owed Mrs Hall for milk, and >-ihe wrote politely for 'payment. Turkington wrote back, "1 have deducted Us (id, for the lock broken on the school , gate." Of course, hy had no right at : ( all to deduct the money from Mrs. ( llall, or from Hall either. Naturally enough Hall went and asked an explanation, as hj,. was perfectly entitled to do. j And it was not unnatural that these ] other men would follow to sec what . would take place. That was no justi- j iicatioa for referring to them as pimps ami bullies, and they had not done any- i thing that was indiscreet or improper. ; Then Mr. -Speiice had come in for a', severe handling at the hands' of plain-1' , tilt's counsel. Had he (liis liuuor, w> , sidered that Mr. ISpeuce was misconducting hinislf llis liouor would have had not the slightest hesitation in intimating that to him, and counsel would admit that lie was not afraid to do thai. Mr. ISpence had not gone beyond his duty, or beyond what was allowable in the conduct of -his case. AJI this was irrelevant, and it should not have been introduced. Thy jury had to look at tile simple facts, and, curious to say .despite tlie fact that they had had „ajs case ibefore them for over a day, tney had to consider What took place on only one occasion. What they had to consider "was the question, "Did llall charge Turkington, the schoolmaster, with having stolen the carrots', upon the occasion of the conversation in that little store V' His Honor remarked that there seemed to have been a good deal of irritation concerning these carrots, but this had not started until after the tiuuoie aoout the sehoolground gate. Then Turkington made liis absolutely /idiculous claim for four guineas for looking after defendant's cow and pig. It was plain, on the plaintiffs' own evidence, that lie had no moie claim for the £4 4s, or four shilling*, either, for that trilling service than iie itadr|ipon auy one of tne jurymen. JiU Honor remarked upon the fact thai mis service was rendered in July, I'.NJS, but the account was not sent in until July of the following year, sifter the school troubles had commenced. Hall was -naturally irritated, and talked to his neighbors about the account, and ! he likewise talked a'-mit the carrots. 1 What did he s-ay about them? Not! that Turkington had stolen tileni, hntj taken more carrots than hj(. was entitled; to. That was all the plaintill' alleged i in his' statement of claim, llall's words, i as given by the plain-till himself, were. "Vou had the rigttt to take a sack of carrots, but you took more, and what, more you took were mine." Of course,! Hall believed that in buying th:> farm | lie hud bought everything growing upon | it. Ihit he knew Turkington had been | authorised to take some of the carrots, | perhaps a sackful. That wa*' what iie j told tii L . plaintilV, and had Turkington left it there, there would have been an end of it. Mall's words did not charge a theft, but that he had exceeded his authority, but for that he was not criminally liable. No policeman knowing the facts and being iii his sane senses would lay a <-hurge. No magistrate | knowing the facts would issue a war-. rant or summon-'. Hut, supposing bv .sonic misadventure the warrant were issued, no magistrate would commit a' man upon such evidence: or. -supjioshg. that there could be such a series of fools j and nincompoops as to do so. then no, judge would allow such a ease to go before a petty jury. Turkington wa> ".lot satisfied, so he pre>sed the defend-1 ant. whose further answers certainly, meant no more than his first explain-1 tion. In these circumstances a word such as the word " thieving" became merely ;i word of abuse. Keverting to | the incident at the sehoolhouse. 11)*' ! Honor said llall had no right to say to plaintiff. "Wait till 1 get you on the

road/' but that lnul 110 more In «!*» with j tills <*a>e than !i;ul Charles' head, in the store Turkiiigton got llall to say iic took the carrots, ami then goaded | liiin into assenting to iliis own sngges-. tion that he made a charge of theft.! Could the jury say that lie had made; a charge of theft when lie followed hy I the "Yes, > bought the and the carrots, and you took the car--1 rots." If they thimgiit the words amounted to a charge of theft lilcy; would find for the plaintiff, hut if thev 1 found that Hall meant no more than

Unit Turkington 1m d rxciviird his authority, then they would linil fur defon<ln 111. If tilt' J - found for plaintiff, tlu'.v must take into consideration the amount of damages that should If awarded. They must not ruin the fnriiior becaus,. he was a fool as well as a farmer, goaded us lie had been liy TurkiiigLon. What damage had been done -Ho Turkingtoiv's -reputation, and what attitude had been adopted by the two or three farmers and farm labourers' who heard this conversation? It was idle, to suggest that tlie ''carrot episode" and this allegation were responsible. for provoking the hostility of the people towards Tnrkington, mid ror

prompting the ''Astbury party" to try .and get him out of the district. The converse was' the case, all the squabble about the carrots arising out of the school committee's disputes and the Astbury party's determination to get rid of the schoolmaster. Fathers, of course, had the right -to endeavour to have their children taught by persons in whom they had confidence. Coming back to the incident at the store, and the effect it had upon those present, Hi* Honor said they had treated it as a .big and ridiculous joke. Had the conversation seriously injure:! Turkiiigton in their eye*'? The witness Hentictt had said, "Ali us chaps were laughing," and those "chaps" showed a great deal more coninionsen>'e than the plaintifl when he brought this action. After a retirement of an hour and a half the jury returned with a verdict for the defendant.

His Honor entered up judgment. «<• conlingly. with an allowance of Cl."> l.">for second day's counsel fee.