POSTMASTER AND FARMER.

Taranaki Daily News, 23 March 1917, Page 6

POSTMASTER AND FARMER.

AN OPUNAKE SLANDER CASE. Considerable interest was taken at Opuiiake yesterday in the hearing a ease before Mr. A. Crooke. S.M., in which John O'Sullivan, a farmer of the district, claimed £101) general damages from W. T. Thompson, postmaster of Opunake, in respect of an alleged malicious slander littered by defendant on or about January 20, l«il7, concerning tlie plaintiff and addressed to the plaintiff as follows: "The neighbors say that you are the biggest cattle thief around, and if everyone had their deserts you would be in gaol." Mr. Marshall, of Opimake, appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. A. H. Johnstone, of New Plymouth, instructed by Mr. Gow, of Eltham, appeared for defendant. Mr. Marshall outlined the case, and Btated he would prove the slander and then reserve the right to call further evidence after hearing the defence. The plaintiff, John Peter O'Sullivan, a farmer residing at the Opunake Hotel, gave evidence that on the Saturday night in question, at about 0 o'clock, he, W. Ward, and a Maori named Koe were in the Opunake Hotel, having a drink, the only one he had had that day. Defendant and three other men came in. Defendant looked over and saw Koe. At this stage Mr. Marshall asked that all witnesses be ordered out of court. Continuing, witness stated that defendant said, "I like your company, Koe." Ward said: "Are you alluding to us?" and defendant said: "Yes; you're a German, Ward, and if you were drawn they would not take you to the war.' He added that O'Sullivan was a pro-

German. When he said that, witness replied that the defendant was the biggest sponger and waster in Opunake. To iur. Marshall's query as to what defendant said about cattle thief, witness replied that defendant said: "The neighbors say you are the biggest cattle thief around, and if every man had his desserts you would be in gaol." Witness, three or four days after, through his solicitor asked for an apology to be advertised in the Opunake Times and the Daily News, but this was not given. At the time there were eight or nine people in the bar, but witness did not take particular notice.

To Mr. Johnstone: He had lived at Opurtake for thirty years, and knew most of those in the bar, but they were not all particular friends of his. He had known the bulk of them longer than he had known defendant. He could not tell if any of them were impressed with Mr. Thompson's words. He instructed his solicitor at the time about the accusation of being a cattle thief. He had two single brothers who had share-milkers milking for them. One brother had gone to camp in January, having been called up under clause 35. Witness himself had intended to enlist when the ploughin" was finished. When before the doctor he had stated that he was subject to fits, and that statement was correct. At the medical examination the doctor put him in one class, but ton minutes later called him back and transferred him to another section. Witness wouiu swear that a Maori called Moses had never called him a thief. He knew his I manager had taken posts from Moses' land, but witness had not instructed his manager to take them. The Maori sued him for the money. Witness had seen the Maori on Monday, but did not ask him not to give evidence to-day. Witness could not remember Robertson callJiim a thief. Mr. Rowlands had done *o at a party one night. He did not remember Mr. Looney complaining about cattle of his being on witness' property. He did not know if any were ever on anv of the O'Snllivans' property. He did not renumber delivering two'heifers to Looney off his property. He did not drive a beast that was on Mr Malcolm's property to the saleyards. Witness knew Mr. Claris well, but did fOt remember any fencing posts be'n-r fakert from his property, nor did he think he had ever taken down Mr. Claris' slip rails. Witness' father had a registered ear-mark. Witness had an ear-mark that was not registered, namelv, a notch out of the top and bottom of' the left ear and the tip off the top. In face of records from the brands offices (produced) he would still say that his father's ear-mark was registered. Mr. Salmon never claimed a beast belonging'to Mr. S. Campbell from a mob that witness was taking to the Lean and Mercantile Company's sale. Witness had rover had any trouble with a Maori named H'enare.'nor with Michael O'Brien, though the latter had branded four of plaintiff's heifers some time previously. This was the first time that witness had heard that Campbell had been credited by the Loan and Mercantile Company with one of the mob. To Mr. Marshall: It was about eight years since Mrs. Rowlands had called witness a thief. She afterwards apolo-

gised and expressed regret. Walter W 7 ard gave evidence to the effect that defendant said: "You're a German. Ward, and if you were drawn they would not take you." Turning to O'Sullivan, defendant said: "You're the biggest cattle thief in the district, and if your neighbors had their rights you'd be in gaol." Continuing, defendant said plaintiff was a pro-German. Witness said that his father,-was English and his mother a half-German, her mother bavins been a German and her father English.

To Mr. Johnstone: Witness had known O'Sullivan for efght or nine years, and thought none the worse of .nm since tne incident. Witness had never spoken to defendant before, and took the remarkseriously. Re-examined, witness said he had given defendant no provocation. William Kirkwood gave corroborative evidence.

Cross-examined, witness had known plaintiff all his life, and had never heard anything against him. The remarks made by defendant had not altered his opinion in the least. Arthur Crawford, farmer, generally corroborated.

To Mr. Johnstone: It could be called a row in a hotel. Witness regarded it as a case of slanging on both sides. He had not altered his opinion of plaintiff since.

Mr. Marshall said that this closed his case in proving slander, but he reserved the right to call other evidence, if necessary, after hearing the case for the defence.

Mr. Johnstone, for. the defence, said that there was no doubt that an altercation had taken place in the hotel between the parties, and apparently a certain amount of feeling existed as to the propriety of plaintiff's enlistment. I'laintiff, with his brothers, had been called up under section 35. He did not attempt to justify what had been said, but no doubt feeling had run high, and there was bad blood on both sides. DeK'lidant was perhaps wrong lo speak as he did, and then plaintiff, as he admitted, ripped out the words he had and , defendant re £'i£d- The rvalue of the ■HHMHHBffi

slander must be taken into consideration. It had not boon circulated deliberately, but was more in the nature of a harroom row, when things were said that wore not meant to be taken, seriously. Most loJVthe witnesses understood it as and Stated that it bad not affected their impressions of .plaintiff, 'Whom most of them had known for years. He contended that plaintiff had not in any way suffered. However, partly by way of justification, and in mitigation of any damages, he proposed to call witnesses to show that plaintiff had taken the Maori's posts and had boon railed a rattle,thief. Mold Parai, commonly known as Moses, gave evidence, that some posts had been taken about six months ago by plaintiff from some native land at Taungatara, in which witness was interested. Witness sa.w these posts afterwards in a fence. He went to plaintiff's manager, and later to plaintiff, whom he called distinctly"* thief, saying that he had no right to take the timber from the native bush. He sued for the value of the. posts and was paid out of court. Witness affirmed that on Wednesday plaintiff asked him whether he was giving evidence, and stated that witness was a "devil liar." Plaintiff said that he had not seen witness for three weeks, and Mr. Johnstone stated that he understood two of the brothers were so alike that it was possible for the witness to have been mistaken. Cross-examined, witness did not know whether the general public had been in the habit of taking posts from the native bush. Though he did not see plaintiff cut the posts, witness would swear they | came off the section. .

George Henry Looney, farmer, Main South Road, a resident of the district for 17 years, deposed that some few months ago he missed two yearling heifers and a yearling steer, and sent his son to Dan O'Sullivan's house. His son got the two heifers, but plaintiff's father stated the steer was not on the property. Later, witness found it there. A heifer that was not sold at the sale was put on John O'Sullivan's property, but got into witness' place. Next day she vvas condemned by the stock inspector, but disappeared the night before it was to he taken to the boiling' down works. Witness later saw this animal brought into the sale, he thought, by one of the O'Snllivans, with O'Sullivan's cattle, and it was condemned and killed. Witness had. had considerable experience with cattle, and as to plaintiff's general reputation witness had heard people say the further cattle were away from defendant the safer they were. Cross-examined: Other cattle occasionally got into witness' paddock. The condemned animal had plaintiff's carmark. Plaintiff should have been able to pick this animal out of 400 or 500, The animal (could not have joined the other mob unless it had been taken out of witness' paddock. Witness believed that he was in Mr. Marshall's company on one occasion when the remark was made about cattle being safer when far away from plaintiff.

Mr. Marshall asked witness whom ho had heard say this. Witness asked whether he was bound to answer this.

Mr. Johnstone also objected. He held that the law of general reputation did not require specific in=tancos.

Mr. Marshall held that he was entitled to cross-examine on the point. The Magistrate held that the question was permissible, as the witness had gone further than general reputation and given a specific instance. Witness mentioned that the subject came up when witness, two others, and Mr. Marshall were discussing another case. Witness was on good terms with i the O'Snllivans, though he never spoke to two of them. He had never told Mr. O'Sullivan, sen., that he intended to bid against him foi a lease unless witness was given £">o.

W. H. Claris, who had been a resident 'a the district for 23 years, stated that to his knowledge plaintiff had not had a good reputation for years where cattle were concerned.

Cross-examined: Witness stated that he had never had any dispute with the O'Snllivans, save in the case of the boundary fence. He had heard various .people speak of plaintiff's reputation, but had not heard anyone give him a good reputation. Witness had not spoken to the O'SulWvans for years. John Coupe, a farmer, of Te Kiri, stated that plaintiff's reputation in regard to stray cat.ie in the bush was not too good.

To Mr. Marshall: He could not give any specific instance in which plaintiff had stolen cattle.

Michael O'Brien, a farmer, at Thaia road, Opunake, for the last nine years, • deposed that a great many people-said plaintiff shifted cattle. Witness, on one occasion, saw a cow with his ear-mark in plaintiff's paddock. Plaintiff's brother told witness to take the cow, but he did not do so at the time, and had never got the animal yet. Cross-examined: Witness considered that it was plaintiff's duty to have returned the cow or have pounded it. Everyone on the road knew each other's cattle. Witness had never branded'four of plaintiff's cattle by mistake, nor had he handed them hack. Witness had on one occasion accused another man of stealing three of his cattle, but he aftrrthat a man on auotlier voad had a similar ear-mark, the registration districts $t that lime overlapping. Witness had never taken a cow belonging to Mr. McC'lelland from O'Sullivan's, but the cow had mingled with his nerd. Witness was not on good terms with the O'Snllivans, as they had taken a cow belonging to him, and-he had to rescue it. Witness detailed the instance at some length. Charles Robert. Mißca Malcolm, n farmer, residing at Opunake for Ihe last ,10 years, deposed that he had a Jersey heifer grazing at Mr. Arthur's when she disappeared. His bey saw this heifer m the factory paddock with two oilier cows, and on going later found that ihe animal was driven away by plaintiff ivith a mob of cattle. Witness had never seen the animal since. He had heard things against plaintiff's reputation, but had also heard things in his favor. Robert Robertson, farmer, Opunake. knew plaintiff for eight years. He might have called plaintiff to his face a thief, but he could not remember doing so. Mr. Marshall asked for an adjournment to enable him to call witnesses in rebuttal of the evidence of Moses, and sl-:o as to general character. Mr. Johnstone protested against the ?djournment as unfair to his client. The Magistrate adjourned the case until next Court day, the question of costs being left until later.

DO YOU DREAD YOUR MEALS? Your food does you little good when you have no desire for it, when you ' dread meal time. What you need is Chamberlain's Tablets for the stomach and fiver. They will sharpen your ,ap 'petite, strengthen your digestion, and