APPEAL COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LII, Issue 231, 4 November 1909, Page 4

APPEAL COURT.

"TRUTH" APPEAL DISMISSED. ' By Telcgrapk-Press Association. Wellington, Wednesday. In the case Norton v. Stringer, dealing with the first count on which a new "'a was asked for, the Court of Appeal sail Hie remarks of counsel complained ot as poisoning the minds of the jury had be-.ii preceded by a reference to the circulation of the" paper. Publication was denied by the defendant, and the onlv manner in which plaintiff could prove publication was by putting in a copy ot the paper. Counsel had pleaded the article was fair comment, and the remarks were made in closing his address when it was necessary to anticipate this argument on this head. There was no reference to defendant personally, and Ihe jury was allowed without opposition to retire with a copy of the paper, and bad a right to look at the whole of it. What more effectual antidote could the defendant ask than the production of Ihe paper itself. On the ground of misdirection by the Judge there, was no reason to think the jury was not properly directed. As to excessive damages, the Court pointed out that if the charges were true plainlill' would have promptly bed dismissed from his post and be liable lo be struck oil the rolls. The writer ot the article expressly said it was meant to be as insulting as possible, and no apology was ever offered. The qticsti.m of damages was especially for the jury, and there was no reason in this case to set its verdict aside. The application was dismissed. Costs were given against the appellant on the highest scale and as from a distance. Leave was given to appeal to the Privy Council upon the usual terms as lo finding security, and stay of execitionjvas ordered subject to the appellant finding due security for appeal. A LICENSING CASE.

In the case Minister of Customs v. Mo'Parlaml, the Appeal Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the \aw could not be construed to extend to sal -s of beer upon which duty had been pail by persons who bad a license authorising them to sell beer and who had nothing to do with its manufacture or the payment of duty on it.

A CIVIL SERVANTS CASE. Tn the case Reynolds v. AttorneyGeneral, the Court held that the board set up to enquire "into the charges of misconduct agaiijst the appellant was a indicia! tribunal and could be controlled by the Court. Afr. Justice Coopers judgment in this respect was reversed. The Court, however, considered the proceedings taken too late, as the board was not now in existence, and on this ground the appeal must be dismissed. But nlaintilT had this redress, that thi hoard's award could not bind him and could not be used to justify his diimissal, which might 'be shown to be wrongful in an action for damages.