Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

SUPREME COURT.

MASTERTON-WEDNESDAY

(Before His Honor, Sir Robert Stout, C.J.)

ALLEGED SLANDER

-. Arthur Coe, custodian of the Greytown Hospital, and Robert Simmonds, farmer, of Featherston, claimed from Frederick Simmonds, farmer, of Featherston, a, sum of £5Ol damages for alleged slander. Mr C. A. Pownall appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr C. W. Nielsen, of Wellington, for the defendant. Mr H. H. Ostler, of the Crown Law Office, represented the police. The following jury were empanelled: —Messrs F. Evans (foreman), H. P. Wynn-Williams, W. J. ■•Wellington, T. Bannister, F. S. Pull, H. Marsh,. C. Stevens, T. B. Michell, H. Wooding, T. T. <Denby, F. -F. Day, and A. Young. The statement of claim set out that, on or about October 13thj 1910, Violet Simmonds, wife of the defendant, wilfully, falsely and maliciously wrote and published to Constables Baker and Larkin, police constables of the Wairarapa, written statements whereby she imputed and alleged false, a,nd famatorv matter of and concerning the* plaintiff's^ that on. the 28th day. of ..September, 1916, at Featherston South, the plaintiff Coe had committed a felony byftssatxlltng Her with ; force Y:and;.yiolence,"'"assisted, by, the, plaintiff •; ■ginimonds.> Wheii| v Mrs Simirionds wrote 1 and statements, it was ■, while she was living with her 'husband. The plaintiff claimed to recover the sum' of £5Ol /either jointly or in such proportion as may be awarded by the Court. •'■'■■,,• >/ Mr C. A. Pownall stated the* cir-> cumstances of the case, and /called. Constable Baker, who said that Mrs Simmonds" had called upon him In connection with a police matter. Mr Ostler, on osfcalf of the Commissioner of Police, objected to any evidence being given by the police concerning any information that had come into their possession. Mr Ostler quoted authorities to show that the State was not.justified in furnishing docu- . ments that might have been entrusted to'the police. These were privileged documents. Mr Pownall argued that a slander issued to the police was. actionable, and j that th? documents in the case could ' hot be i.egarded as State documents. His Honor held, on the authorities quotedi that the State couW n-t be compelled to produce the documents in its possession. , Mr Pownall stated that he ooull not proceed in view of this decision. It seemed to him »n atiocious thing, how- ' ever, that a person cculd write slanderous statements to a police officer, and that these statements were protected. His Honor said it would be still more •< atrocious if a*-person were debarred from making statements to the police ' for fear of subsequent action for slander.'': -\" •''■'■,... :'•■'■ .''. '■'.■ Mr Pownall said he had no other evidence to tender. His Honor thereupon non-suited the plaintiffs, with costs on the lowest ( scale. SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. Anders Olsen, farmer, of Eketah.uha, claimed from Thomas Gwynri Horsley; Williams, of Canterbury;/ a jjunr'pfY£^^ of \ti, opntract to purchase .plaintiff's : 'property^atiEketahuna , . ■'■■'■■' ; -'-'\ ; damages:*a^claimed. ; :- v """->; : v- - : ;'','/' 'Mr E. Page (Eketahuna) appeared- •• fpr,;the plaintiff, Mr C; W. Neilson for the defendant. i I The material allegations in the claim were admitted by the defence, and Mr Page moved for jiidgment on- the ;pleadings. 'This was granted by His Honor; who made a decree for specific performance and the payment of the ' amount of the claim, viz., £2768. ■'; CLAIM FOR DAMAUES. Frederick C.- Fox,: painter, of Majsterton, claimed.from Frederick O'Coii- . nor, carrier, of Tihui/ the'sum of £5Ol for damages caused by alleged negligence."- .'!' / ! -->' ; --'-' ■•' ; ■■ -. ' I :'■ .MrCii A. Pownall appearedfor the plaintiff,**and Mr P.■■?.li.\ Hollings for the defendant. /■;■ . : ;{hThe''foll6wihg jury/rwas empanelled: H.j P.; Wynn-Williams (foreman)/: J. Betty, rR. Murray, r T: Bannister, R. Crawford, G. : Watson, P. ■ L. Gully, W.'Spaekman,;Av Owen, Jv;Meynell, H. Wooding, ■ and C.VC. Ib-"-i;bptson.r; :}: /'>''/V'/ :.■'••'■''•; •;•:.'.■;'';•':"•;'. '; ; statement-of claim set out that tlie'plaintiff,'\vith two companions, was driving from the Lower Taueru to Masterton oh the evening of November 3rd, 1910. At a spot about four miles from Masterton. they encountered a bale qf wool in the middle of the road. ! The horse shied, and upset the trap over an embankment, as the result of jAvhich plaintiff sustained a compound fracture' of the left leg, in addition to general injuries and serious pain and .'inconvenience. The plaintiff was confined to his bed for six weeks,; and was likely to suffer permanent injury. The wool, it'was alleged, was the property of James Foreman, of Tiiitii, and O'Connor,, while" acting as- carrier, negligently and "carelessly omitted to observe that the bale had dropped, and to take any steps to pre- , a .yent accident, until after the.plaintiff was injured.. He/therefore claimed damages to the'extent of £5Ol. .. x ' ;:;,i^he,defence was,a denial of the. allegatiJjis conslained in the claim/and it was contended that tho wool was the property of Foreman. Defendant was not his servant, but was acting as an. independent carrier. Without any negligence or carelessn&ss th-vT-W fell from, the waggon. Every reasonable care was taken in loading the wool. B and it was alleged that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence - in carelessly and unskillfully driving ■ along the.i-oad, in failing to vss proper 9 control over the horse, and *'o reserve I the bale r.f woo!: and avoid the and in driving without lighfcF. '.. Evidence was givevt by>r'--.'!erick C.

I Fox, plaintiff in the case, in corroboration of the facts as set out in the statement of claim. J Dr. Cowie gave evidence as to the j extent of plaintiff's injuries. Evidence in corroboration was given by J. J. Kelliher, law clerk, "W. B. Ingram, hotelkeeper, Taueru, testified as to plaintiff's sobriety. William Shepherd, one of the occupants of the trap at the time of the accident, stated that every care was taken by the driver, and that they had good lights on the vehicle. By Mr Hollings: He would say that the "light from the lamps would only reach as far a? the horse's head. Herbert F. Sparksman also gave evidence of the accident. He stated that tho lights shone about seven or eight yards. ; Robert Buick, farmer, stated that he met Fox's party on the night of the accident, and was asked to give assistance. The bale of wool was not in a dangerous place when witness saw it, being beyond the motal, on tho grass. William Iggulclen, carrier, said that ; if a waggon was properly loaded the

- jolting would not loosen a rope and allow a bale to fall out. The ro~>es should have ben tied so that , th-rv , would.riot slacken. " . Hugh Graham, farm hand, gave evidence as to having given assistance after tho accident. The bale was in the centre of the metal, but was removed ion to the grass before Buick arrived. Mr Hollings asked for a non-suit oil the ground that there must be neglir geneo proved. j His Honor stated that Iggulden's > evidence pointed out that the wagon ; must have been negligently loaded. Mr Hollings held that it was not proved that tho waggon was not properly loaded. Tho plaintiff had taken no steps to interview those who had loaded the waggon.' One .man was not

liable for an accident .which was causedby Unforseen circumstances. Counsel held that the damages were too remote. His Honor stated that Mr Hollings had raised two very strong points, but he thought Jthe.case ought to go to the jury, so,vjfe reserved the points.. Frederick O'Connor: defendant in the case, stated + hat he had adopted tho exact method; of loading as Mr Trrcrnlden hod outlined. He had seven bales on the floor of the waggon, twelve ' in the.second tier, and five on the top.; The bah? which fell was on the back' left hand cornor'of the second tier. : bales;;were all, ' fecurely itiedi 'stopped to water his horses aMhe;top of Bennett's r.HiIJ,-... ;had a; round arid i 'o^^l^^A%^}i^^^R^Mi!C: :^i^.[^-i^: - -' ness again looked round, at.the bot-: "■', liottom of: the hill to the place where . the bale fell off .was just newly metall- ( ; ed.; He misused the bale. about two milps nearer Masterton. and was ■ walking back, when he met Mr.Buick, who told'him of tho accident, and that . the bale had been put on the" side of the road out of th« way of "traffic. Witness subsequently sent' a. man out for the bale. The.night of the accident was a starlight one, and the bale should have been seen. An old horse like plaintiff's could be pulled up quite/ easily if it was being driven carefully. Albert Martelli, who assisted defendant to load the waggon, corroborated ; the letter's statement as to the method adopted. Alex. Young, carrier, gave evidence as to having gone for the bale which ifell out: of the waggon. • The bale, which was against the fence, showed signs of having struck the ground on its side and rolled clear of the wheel track. Ht? also corroborated the evidence 'of'tho other witnesses concerning: the method of loading. ; 'Eobex-t Boattv. William Henry Brooks. >nd -William ; Shipley ■ gave corroborative evidence'. ; : His Honor said that plaintiff contended that the mere fact that the accident occurred was. evidence that the defendant was/negligent. .There was no evidence that defendant was driving improperly,' so that the only point to consider was whether or not the de- ; fondant was negligent in loading the waggon. Supposing defendant was not negligent, the next question /was, "Was the accident caused by plaintiff's negligence ?" There was to bo considered whether the plaintiff . was properly driving his horse: and ; whether he should havo been able'to { check his horse. The next question '■ was. what damages.plaintiff was entity ; led to.. The issues; to, consider were :f—- ---.■,'■.■■":■'-'!;■ Was the ■ defendant guilty of negligence in loading;the waggoii ? ! '■.,''..'.'.* 2, Was ; .the' accident caused ', ■ ; '. through the negligence of, the-; de-' 1 : fendant? ',.;,'-,' '):',."■■■•'''■; ' U-- , 3. Was the plaintiff .guilty of any negligence which caused the acci-1 dent? ..' .' ' .. ... '4.' What', damages (if; any) is the plaintiff entitled to recover? ..•'...'-.The jury retired at 4.45 o'clock, and on returning at 7.55, answered the first \ question in the negative. ]. ; His Honor accordingly gave judgment for defendant, and relieved the jury for the rest of the sitting .

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WAG19110330.2.5

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10199, 30 March 1911, Page 3

Word count
Tapeke kupu
1,644

SUPREME COURT. Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10199, 30 March 1911, Page 3

SUPREME COURT. Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10199, 30 March 1911, Page 3

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert