SUPREME COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1572, 23 April 1887, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

lIBEL. The heating of the libel case Ivess v. Kerr, in which damages were laid at £2OO, commenced at 1030 a,m. last Thursday in Timaru, before Mr Justice Johnston and the following jury, viz., Messrs James Granger (foreman), W. Deßenay, Jacob Bill, and Alex. Macpherson. Mr F. Wilding appeared for the prosecution, and Mr T. L, Joynt for the defence. Mr Wilding in opening the case read the following extract from the South Canterbury Times of November 20tb, 1886, which extract contained the matter alleged to be libelous:—“ When the lessee of the Timstu Herald temporary issued what be was pleased to call hie challenge to the proprietor of this journal, to the effect that he would be ready to give £25 to the Timaru Hospital if it could be shown that the circulation of the Herald was not so large as that of the South Canterbury Times, he no doubt thought that

be naa bit upon a clever way or aavercismg himself and his temporary possession. Judging, however, from the tone of the sub-leader published in his columns last Saturday, it did not take him long to realise his mistake. It was from no fear of the result that we did not take up the silly "challenge,” but simply because the circulation of a newspaper has nothing to do with anybody else bub the advertisers themselves, and they can learn as muoh as they like concerning the matter by calling at our office. Even had we been disposed to comply with the request, we should first have had to take into account what sort of person it was who suddenly showed so strong a desire to play the part of philanthropist. The lessee of the Herald must be gifted with an extremely convenient memory if he has forgotten a little incident that took, place not very long ago when he was contesting the Wakanui seat with Mr B, G. Wright, On that occasion be took be took upon himself to deny something that the opposing candidate bad stated, and offered to give £6O to the local

hospital if he were proved to be wrong, on condition that Mr Wright staked a similar amount to be dealt with in the same way if his statement were not substantiated. The latter immediately agreed to the proposal, but though Mr Ivess appeared remarkably eager at first, he managed in soma way to shuffle out of the affair, and the Ashburton Hospital never got the £6O after all. We need not say he rendered himself ridiculous —to use no stronger term—in the eyes of all right-minded persons, but there are some men who do not care a brass farthing for being placed in a contemptible position so long as they advertise themselves. If the South Canterbury Hospital and Charitable Aid Board feel in any measure aggrieved at losing the promised £26, they will no doubt be reconciled to the lots by reflecting on the obvious moral attached to the episode in the Wakanui election to which we have referred.” He next read the pleadings on both sides, showing the defence to be a denial of the allegation that the matter complained of was false and malicious, and went on to explain that the plaintiff was lessee of the Timaru Herald, and the defendant proprietor of the South Canterbury Times. The proprietor of the latter paper published an advertisement to the effect that the South Canterbury Times had a larger guaranteed circulation than all the other papers in South Canterbury put together. In reply to this Mr Ivess issued a challenge to the effect

that be would gire £26 to the hospital, and pay £5 to each of (he Borough auditor! if Mr Eerr could prove he had the largest oir. eolation, Mr Eerr to pay limilar aumi if he failed to prove bia assertion; Mr Eerrde* olined to accept thia challenge, and some day* afterwards published the libel complained of. After a long discussion on paints of law of not the slightest general Interest, the hearing of the evidence commenced. For the prose* oution Joseph Zvest, who described himself as lessee of the Timani Herald; Charles A. 0. Hardy, J.P., merchant, Bakaia ; 8. S. Coster, farmer, Bakaia; J. M, Gilboy, schoolmaster j Daniel Brick, farmer ; John Eilgour, laborer; Frederick Duncan, commission agentj and Theodore Arnold, Inspector of Works, Dunedin,, were examined; The principal point on which (he whole case hinged was at follows i—At the election held in Ashburton in 1885 the candidates were Mr Joseph Ivess and Mr E. GK Wright. At one of the meetings a member of his own

Committee asked Mr Wright whether be had been misrepresented as regarded his conduct with reference to the Aahburton Forks and Mount Somers railway in the Ashburton Mail, of which Mr lyess was proprietor, and Mr Wright replied that he had. Subsequently, at the nomination of members, Mr ivess offered to put down £SO against Mr Wright’s £SO, and if Mr Wright could prove that he had been misrepresented Mr Ivess would forfeit the £SO and hand it over to some local charitable institution, or if Mr Wright failed to prove bis accusation his £SO would be similarly dealt with. This challenge Mr Wright accepted, and subsequently three of Mr Wright’s Committee waited on Mr Ivess and his Committee to arrange details about the bet. At this interview Mr Ivess denied that he included the Mount Somers railway in the challenge. He held bis challenge referred to the . Eakaia and Ashburton Forks railway only, snd saad he did not mention the Mount Somers line at all. Mr Wright’s party held that he had, and would not accept the challenge unless the Mount Somers line was included. Mr Ivess refused to include the Mount Somers line in the challenge, and consequently the bet was never carried further. The whole case therefore hinged on the question, Did Mr Ivess include the Mount Bothers line in the challenge P All the witnesses for the prosecution swore that ha did not. Mr Ivess produced the note made by him at the time, and alio copies of the Ashburton Mail, Ashburton Guardian, and Christchurch Press, which all went to show that Mount Somers was not mentioned.

For the defence the reports of the Ljttelccn Times and Christchurch Telegraph were pro* duoed, showing that the Mount Somers line was included by Mr lve»« in the challenge. J. Maclean Dunn, reporter for the Lyttelton Times, produced the original note taken by him at the meeting at which the challenge was made, and it showed the Mount Somers line was included.. He swore poiltiyely it was. B. J. Paul, reporter for the Press and Telegraph, also swore that the Mount Somers line was mentioned, and that he had the words “ Mount Somers " on his original notes. He sent a short telegram to the Tolegraph, in which the Mount Somera line appeared. He met Mr Iveii the same even* ing, and showed him the report he was forwarding to the Press. At Mr Iress 1 request he scratched the words “ Mount Somers " out of his report, and hence the reason it did not appear in the Press. Samuel Saunders, the reporter for the Ashburton Guardian, said he was under the impression the Mount Somers line was mentioned, although it did. not appear in his report. Sergeant Felton, Ashburton ; 0. W. Purnell, Solicitor, Ashburton ; and B, 0. Wright, the candidate who opposed Mr Iress, all held that the Mount Somers line was mentioned. Mr Wright alio said—Mr Shaw, the Editor of the S.O, Times, in November last had a conversation with me about the Wakanui election with regard to the difference. Talking about the challenge as to the circulation, I spoke to Mr Shaw of the Wakanui 'episode. After reading the challenge 1 said Mr Ive» appeared to have forgotten the incident named,and I gave]

ietaili of it pretty muoh u stated to-day. E. G. Kerr, defendant, stated that u Seoul as he got the solicitor's letter he wrota to Mr? Wright, asking him whether the article was correct, for if it was not ha would apologise. - He had oarer seen the article until it was in print. GK J. Shaw, the writer of the article, stated that the information on which the article.was founded was supplied by Mr B. G, Wright, He read the article to Mr Paul before it was printed, and he said it w quite right, • After some rebutting evidence was heard'; counsel adressed the jury, and the Judge having summed; up the jury retired at 420 p.m, At 7.30 p.m. they returned into Court, and the foreman intimated that three of them .were in favor of a verdict for the defendant with costs. A .verdict of three-fourths was taken, and costs were allowed oa the lowest seals... Mr Wilding asked for leave to apply for a new trial, and the application was granted.