ALLEGED LIBEL.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 214, 8 March 1912, Page 7

ALLEGED LIBEL.

CLAIM FOR £IOOO. A MOST EXTRAORDINARY CASE. One of the most extraordinary cases "ver ventilated in a court of law was li-rjrd at yesterday's sitting of the Supreme Court in the shapes of a claim for alleged libel for £IOOO. The parties to the action were James George Johnstone. plaintiff, and John O'Donnell, defendant. Both parties are farmers, residing near Hawera. Mr. G. Hutchison appeared for the plaintiff, while Mr. C. P. Skerrett, and with him Mr. It. G. Sellar, for O'Donnell. The following jury was empanelled:— Francis M. Grayling, John Hale, Ernest George, Thomas B. Salter, Arthur F. Courtney, Arthur B. Bullot, Wm. R. Proctor, Edgar H. Carter, Daniel H. Bishop, James Julian, Lewis E. G. Nipper, George Pearce, Frank G. Robertson. Mr. Pearce was chosen foreman. STATEMENT OF CLAIM.

According to the statement of claim it was alleged that the defendant, John O'Donnell, published by exhibiting in writing various epithets, allusions and charges of a false and malicious character, which were intended and understood to refer to the plaintiff. The plaintiff further alleged that the defendant on or about the second day of May, 1911, and on divers other occasions, made false and malicious statements concerning the plaintiff by way of his occupation as a farmer—accusing him of destroying the defendant's fences in order to turn stock in on his land; further, that the plaintiff was in the habit of interfering with fences, that he had interfered with n - other neighbor's stock, ancl that he ■ felled and taken away the-defendants; timber. On the first cause of action tiie plaintiff claimed £SOO damage, and in the second cause he claimed £ 100 for each of five slanderous publications concerning his farming occupations, making a total claim of £IOOO. DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE. The first witness called was the defendant, John O'Donnell. Mr. Hutchison: You know the plaintiff? Witness: Yes; and I know nothing good of him! (Laughter). Witness- then, at Mr, Hutchison's request, wrote specimens of his hand-writ' ingHis Honor interjected: You have smudged the writing; you have not blotted it.

Witness then made some additions at counsel's request.

Mr. Skerrett remarked: This is very funny—highly amusing. To Mr. Skerrett: He had had frequent disputes with Mr. Johnstone.

Mr. Skerrett: Why .is it...that you know nothing good of Johnstone? Defendant: Because he kept driving stock through my place and because he' has. taken' posts from various persons' places, without asking them. Counsel: Anything else?. Defendant: Because he is continuallywriting about me in the Press. At least, "I am almost certain. . . Mr. Skerrett: Do people want your farm?

Witness: Yes; he and someone elsfe. ' Mr. Skerrett: What do you thiifk they want it for?

Witness: To compel me to sell at their price. Plaintiff, he added; wished to' add it to his holding. Mr. Skerrett: How do you know? Witness: Because I have been told by any amount of the neighbors. I A copy of an article in the New ZeaI land Timos was-here handed up, witness alleging that he was attacked in it. His Honor: It seems to refer, more to Mr. Massey than to you. Mr. Hutchison: It is of a semi-political nature. : Mr. Skerrett: Why do you think the phrase "long hair" in the article refers to you? Witness: Because I used to wear long hair in the winter time, and no hat. Mr. Skerrett: You wished to keep" your head warm? - - ... fitness (seriously,); Yes.- '- ■ ■ - 1 Mr. Skerrett: What countryman are you—not an Italian? Witness: North of Ireland. Mr. Skerrett: Do you think this refers to you? Witness: It is Mr. Johnstone's epochmaking account of his trip abroad. Mr. Skerrett: Mr. Johnstone is by way of being a poet?— Yes. I _Mr. Skerrett: And some of his effu-1 sions appeared in the Press and others were posted up at the dairy factory. Did you see them? ] Wtiness: No; I have not been near J the place for three years. Counsel: Why? Witness: Because they boycotted me Counsel: Well? ' | Witness: I went to another factory three miles off. • Mr. Skerrett: What happened there? t v j 638: * was boycotted there, and I had to sell my cows and stock cattle. Mr. Skerrett: You and Johnstone had a fight? Defendant freely admitted this, remarking: "I asked him to put up his hands, and I gave him a smack which settled him." Counsel: What happened next? , Witness: He hit me three or four times with a whip. After this things appear to have been a bit mixed, for the witness, after further details, remarked that his opponent said he felt sick and wished to knock of!.

*j| ontlnuin & Mr ' remarked: There was an extraordinary article put up on the Fraser road dairy factory door. Did you write it and did it refer to plaintiff? Witness: Yes. .

Mr. Skerrett: Is this how it reads? {Counsel proceeded to read a most extraordinary jumble of opprobrious EPITHETS, the bulk of which were quite unfit for publication). The following are a few extracts: "It is no good to loiter with a'puffadder, buck rat or a weasel of a venomous nature. On their peregrinations at sea pirates to John Bull Land or Yankee Doodle spore. . . . If you please, ask him to take his hat off. If he does you will see three faces, one before and aft and one on top. • • • • He is an illegitimate waif | left on the doorstep of some peasant, who send him to an industrial school, where he picked up the little education ■he has, at the expense of the country. • ... A squinty-eyed Scandinavian rat, a pesky poodle, despicable, invidious, runagate, depraved lunatic from the devil knows where,—Hobbledehop." Defendant here admitted making a statement that plaintiff had injured his fences and put strange stock on to his (defendant's) land. Defendant added: •Tolinstoue felled my shelter bush and took the timber for'fences, after covering up the traces. Mr. Skerrett (quoting from the statement of claim): "Johnstone is a nightbird, but I will eatcli him yet." Do you admit stating that to somebody? Defendant: Yes. And I did catch him, and I thumped him, too!' Mr. Hutchison: You instructed your solicitor to deny that you wrote it, and that- it had anything to do with Johnstone ? Defendant: Yes; hut I was not on my oath then. '

Cousnel: "Oh!" Proceeding, lie went on to say that it was evident that what witness said on oath and when he was not so, contrasted strongly . Mr. Hutchison: Johnstone is, like yourself, a single man? Defendant: I don't knovr. Mr. Hutchison: But he lives next to i I you, and lives by himself. ' Witness still protested that for all he [ knew he mfclit be married all the same. j THE PLAINTIFF'S STORY. James G. Johnstone, the plaintiff, said in: the course of his story that the docu- • ment produced in Court was handed to him by the factory manager. He denied writing an article in the New Zea-' land Times which was attributed to him by the defendant. Mr, Skerrett: You know the Fraser j road is the rendezvous of the district, and you were guilty of writing poetry, and in it you did mention Amy Bock? Plaintiff: Yes. Plaintiff added that O'Donnell was Mb neighbor, with' 61 acres of land. It was not true that he had been plotting to buy his land. Witness admitted that he wanted the land, but said lie did not try to bounce his neighbor into selling. He broke 110 | fences, but had on one occasion to drive I a cow through O'Donnell's property in ! order to get it home. The latter had j no proper fence; it was in a ramshackle . state and. cattle could go through on their own account. The reason why hie cattle got in was attributable to that reason. He admitted the light with defendant-, whom he alleged was the aggressor. Mr. Skerrett: You are, by the way, a poet? Plaintiff: I get the credit of it. - Mr. Skerrett: You amuse the settlers? Plaintiff: And instruct them. Mr. Skerrett: You also instruct others Iby descriptions of your travels, even from Hawera to Fraser Road? J • Mr. Skerrett: Some of your poems are historical, some are facetious, and some refer to your neighbors. Are any sentimental? Plaintiff: None are libellous. Mr. Skerrett: I am not asking that. Now do you remember composing one which includes the words, "John O'Donnell from the land of O'Connell?" Plaintiff admitted -this. i HUNT'S PIG. I Mr. Skerrett: And jrou published on«; about Hunt's pig or his fowlhouse? Plaintiff said that mention was only made of the fowlhouse indirectly in -the , 6tory. Mr. Skerrett: You know O'Donneli. ■ Is he not a man of a strange eccentri* , nature? ■

Plaintiff: He us a very shrewd man. Mr. Skerrett then asked plaintiff if he did not know that O'Donnell did not suffer a predestination that he was always more or less the object of injury, In short, that every man's hand was against him. Plaintiff: He is suspicious. Jsr...,Skerrett: Do you not know that Ife regards himself as the subject of a ring against him, and that he is a man who has always got a grievance? ■Plaintiff: He certainly has a Bet ■ against roe. Mr. Skerrett: Come, Sir, do you not know (that lie was—quite improperly I'll admit—under the impression that his neighbors were making it pretty hot foJ him in order to get him to clear out of the district? Plaintiff said he could not admit that ' Mr. Skerrett, referring to the document which defendant admitted being re sponsible for. Is it not a most extraordinary production—an eccentric one? Plaintiff: It serves its purpose t« blackguard me. . ' Mr. Skerrett: Can you imagine any sane man in a normal state of mind writing that if he signed his namel Plaintiff said he would think it extraordinary, but-defendant was intelligent enough at times. A SUSPICIOUS CORRESPONDENT. : Counsel: Apparently he will not trust the Fraser road post office—he is so suspicious. . Plaintiff: Yes, he posts them at Hawera. : ■ Counsel: .Qne'Charge relates to cutting .posts on certain property. Do you say positively that you did not get a letter 1 from him about this? ' Plaintiff: No, but it wants explanation, and he and I were very good friends. Counsel: But did H not complain? Plaintiff: "But H is a very ignorant man and a silly man. ... I have done a lot to help him. Counsel (after endeavoring to get a' direct answer): You are still praising yourself, Mr. Johnstone. Plajntiff: No, I am only explaining , the incident. Counsel: Do you know how much you are claiming? Plaintiff: It think so—£looo. Counsel: Leaving out injury to your feelings, what are your damages in £ s. d. in regard to the alleged libel? . Plaintiff: It would be a difficult mat-1 ter. I have lost £4OO. Counsel: How?

f Plaintiff: I have lost a milking season. It so upset my nerves. It unnerved me so. I devoted all) any attention, tq I O'Donnell to lay him by his heels. Counsel: How long have you thus been pursuing O'Donnell? Are: you still bad? Will your nerves be better when you win the action! A PROSPECTIVE HOLIDAY. Plaintiff: Only when I go to Rotorua. Counsel (sharply): And you want O'Donnell to pay for your trip? Would not a civil action to bind the defendant over to keep the peace have sufficed? Well, about slander. How much would you like? Plaintiff: Well, I don't mind so much about that. Counsel: We know you want £SOO for the trip to Rotorua. Come, what do you want? Plaintiff: The jury will decide. Plaintiff added that he was preparing for the milking season, and that was where the loss came in through his nerves being upset. Counsel: You had not even bought the cows. ! Plaintiff: But I lost the milking season. Further cross-examined, he said he was actually using only two acres. The rest of his farm was let. James White, manager of the dairy factory on Eraser's road, next gave evidence, stating that the notice which O'Donnell had admitted writing was read by a number, of farmers before it was removed by himself. To Mr. Skerrett: Outside the factory was the favorite place for putting up quips, pigces of poetry, and such like for th 6 aniusement of the local residents. Counsel: "Do you not regard O'Donnell's composition as a farrago of nonsense? Witness: That is just what I did. Counsel: Do you not know that this claim is the laughing stock of all the suppliers? Wiiness; I never asked anybody about it. Counsel: There is a suggestion of relationship with one Amy Bock. That is rather serious is it not? Witness: I should think so. John Potter, a farmer, also gave evidence on behalf of the plaintiff, and was then asked by Mr. Skerrett if he did not think O'Donnell was a man of very eccentric character. Witness, in replying, said, "What do you mean by eccentric?" Counsel: Well, is he a queer-natured man? Witness: To my idea he js. Counsel: Is he not known to be a very suspicious man? -/ ■

| Witness: Yes; lie has a little bit of I suspicion against a good many. \ To Mr. Hutchison: Defendant was a good hand at a bargain, and a keen man of business. William Wollcr, also a farmer in tke same locality as the other witnesses, recalled O'Donnell having remarked as follows, in speaking of the plaintiff: "That goggle-eyed son of a has drawn the staples and put the bull through on to me." O'Donnell, added witness, al«o made otter allegations about some shelter bush having been taken by Johnstone, and a series of other charges about fences, cattle and the like. Darcy Farmer, farm hand, said tliAt, meeting the defendant one day, the latter had remarked that he was going to show Johnstone that he was not the only man who could write poetry. John T. Dwyer, Fraser road, deposed that from what he knew, of O'Donnell he was just an ordinary sort of a farmer—just like himself, for instance. (Laughter.) To Mr. Skerrett: He had read the document. He could not make sense of it, certainly not poetry. (Laughter.) COUNSELS' ADDRESSES. Addressing the jury, Mr. Hutchison emphasised that it was not a matter to laugh at out of court, and he combatted the suggestion that defendant had acted /out of suspicion or because he had a "bee in his bonnet." As for the suggestion that the whole of the document about which plaintiff complained was "mere farrago," the eccentric wording of it was merely part of the scheme to endeavor on the part of defendant to throw suspicion off himself. It was a cool and calculated attempt to injure the plaintiff. Besides, was O'Donnell to be licensed to defame all and sundry—particularly tie plaintiff—merely because he was said to be eccentric? Further, the' ; defendant had not attempted to justify oiie of his slanders. In a lengthy address, Mr. Skerrett said that the proper course was not to drag the defendant into the Supreme Court, but rather to simply bind him over to keep the peace. • Plaintiff had, added counsel, come to court deliberately to make money out of O'Donnell. He had, in fact, come there to ruin the defendant, who was only a poor man with a small leasehold farm. O'Donnell had for a long time lived alone, and this I doubtless had the effect of making him morbid. He was 'of a highly suspicious nature. According to his Honor, an important question to decide was whether the document which was posted up at the factory was to be regarded as a serious attack oi" mere nonsense. He; concluded by put-* ting five issues to the jury, who, after a retirement 'of 45 minutes, announced that they had come to the following conelusions:—; (1) Is the document set out in the statement of claim a libel on the plaintiff?— Yes. . (2) Is so, what-,damages is the plaintiff /entitled to "recover from the defendant?—£so. . (3) Did the defendant speak these words of and concerning the plaintiff, "He had cut some shelter bu6h and covered the stumps up with leaves so that it would not be noticed?"— Yes. (4) If so, did the words charge the ' plaintiff with the offence of theft?— No. (s)' If they did, what damages is the plaintiff entitled to recover? —None. Judgment was accordingly entered by His Honor for £soi, with costs for» plaintiff on the lowest scale. On the latter issues, on which the verdict was in favor of the defendant, His Honor al-. lowed defendant costs to the amount of i £7 10s. > J