SUPREME COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1460, 28 January 1886, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

Timaku— Wednesday, Jan, 27, 1886, [Before ilia Honon Mr Justice Johnston, and a Jury of four. LIBEL. I. 11. C. C. Graham v. J. W. Clayton. This was an action for £2OO, for a libel, alleged to have appeared in the Ashburton Mail on July 4th, 1885. The following words in a letter appearing in that paper on the above date were alleged to contain the libel: —‘‘The next of these gentlemen is Mr I. R, C. C. Graham, who in this district rejoices in a sobriquet the very opposite of being well filled, and who gained that sobriquet by his guileless and gentle mode of treating poor, hungry, weary and wornout laboring men, for whose welfare he has all at once become so solicitous. Was not this also the gentleman who contested the seat for Ashburton last year, when he polled only one vote, which, of course, was not his own 1 Shade of Ciaverhouse !! ! can you rest in your grave after this 1” The letter was signed “ Not to be Humbugged.” Mr F. Wilding appeared for the plaintiff and Mr C. W, Parnell for the defendant. I. R. C. C, Graham, sheepowner in the Ashburton district, said that ho had road the letters published in the Ashburton Mail of July 4th, 1885, produced. The sobriquet alluded to in tha paragraph containing the alleged libel was “ Hungry Graham,” and witness understood that applied to himself, He could not give any distinct reason why he was called “ Hungry Graham.” He believed the words to be used ironically because the whole letter was in the same strain. He understood from reading the letter that the writer meant he (witness) was a deceitful and harsh man, and unworthy to be listened to by the elestors. The letter was published on the Saturday prior to the Monday when the election took place. On the following Tuesday witness called on defendant and asked for the name of the writer of the letter. He was told to cal! again on the Bth and 9tb July, but the defendant said they had not made up their minds as to disclosing the name. After three applications the defendant refused to give the name or apologise. In cross-examination witness said he believed tho defendant had no personal animus against him. He bad been a member of public bodies in the district, and had also stood as a candidate for the Jounty Oouncil and for the House of Representatives. In the latter case he only polled one vote, Joseph Ivess, Deßenzy Brett, M.L.0., and E. b. Coster, farmer, gave evidence to the effect that they considered the letter applied to the plaintiff, and was personal and ironical. Mr Purnell addressed the Court for the defence urging that the letter was published in good faith, and with a desire to deal even-handed justice on both aider, and the meaning placed on it by the plaintiff was strained and not justified. No witnesses for the defence were called, and His Honor having summed up, the jury returned a verdict for tha plaintiff for £25. His Honor certified for that amount, with costs on the lower scale