ALLEGED SLANDER.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXV, Issue 10713, 22 March 1913, Page 5

ALLEGED SLANDER.

JOHNSON V. RUSSELL.

= At Thursday's sittings of the Supreme Court, Masterton, an action wii.fr heardi n which Augustus John Johnson, auctioneer, and commission agent, claimed from Robert Russeli, second hand dealer, £505 damages for alleged slander. The following jury was sworn m: " W. H. Booth (foreman), W. S. _ Jagq,. F. T. lluiiphviHs R. S«?>mour, H. W. Bangate, W. Spaceman, D. J. Cameron, W. J. Welch, W. Hood, G. Morr.s, A. K«=:th,.W. E. Chamberlain.. Mr, A. M. Myers (Wellington.* and with him-Mr J. Coradinoapi i>eared for plaintiff and Mr P. L.. , Hollings appeared for defendant.. Mr Myers in addressing the jury.. said the plaintiff had for tivo years; [ carried on business aa an auctioneer and commission agent, and stated, that on or about January 21st. 1913; , the defendant falsely and nialicious'.y spoke and published to George Ashdown, of Masterton, settler, and Nina • Mauu Stewart, married woman, tha following words: "There is no auction room now. Johnson (meaning, the plaintiff) has gone down. He has lost his license;" and -to, Annabella Scorrar, of Masterton, the ' following, words: "Johnson had to get out because lie did not' have £4O to get a; license and that is why Frank Evans, is selling for him." Arabella Scorrar, waitress, residing; in Masterton, deposed to knowing both plaintiff and" defendant. Remembered being in defendant's shop on 23rd. January, and was talking with defendant about sales generally,, when defendant stated that he could, have got plaintiff's business for a. mere nothing. He said plaintiff was getting out because he had not £4O to get his license, and that was why he was working in conjunction with. Mcintosh and Co., and why Frank. Evans was selling for him. Cross-examined by Mr Hollings,. Witness said no one else was present to hear the conversation. Mrs Russell was in the front of the shop all the time. Went there to buy art ' article of, furniture. - The conversation took place while; she was looking at the furniture. Did not know that the furniture of a Mrs Stewart was mentioned. Defendant made no reference to Johnson having missed buying some furniture. Witness was not* a "particular friend of Johnson, only that he came'" to her, restaurant'for meals. She did not go to "defendant's shop on the advice of plaintiff. The day after she-went to defendant *. shop, she saw Johnson and told him of; the -conversation ;with defendant,. . Auimstus John Johnson,. plaintiff, deposed to have lived in Masterton for over four' years, arid .had been carrying on business as an auctioneer and commission agent for two years and one month. He bad eight agencies prior to selling his business. He did general commission business. Hjs auctioneer's license expired on 31*t. December. He had always desired to eo in for stock auctioneering. Another reason for selling his business was the fact that his voice was troubling him During the latter part of last year his auctioneering work was done bv Mr Frank Evans, as plaintiff * voice was strained. He.gave possess- - ion of his business to Mr V L, Fanbrotber.on February Ist. There ia* no financial reason for his not taking out an auctioneer's license. Hi* business had been increasing prior to plaintiff said b* employed Mr Frank Evans to conduct S for him, for which be paid lum at the rate of £2 2s per day. From . . the end of December to 20th January he conducted at least one sale. He did not have an auctioneer's or second hand dealer's license since the end of December. He denied saymg to defendant that he would have some "stuff" out of him. Did not say he would have the satisfaction of putting defendant to expense. His business was affected by the statements made by defendant, as he lost a sale by it. He first heard of the statements a day or two before he saw Miss Scorrar He admitted bringing Xma Stewart, a half-caste, to his solicitor's office to make her statement. ■Nina Maim Stewart, of Masterton, deposed to knowing Russell, and remembered seeing him on Anniversary Day at his shop. She went to see him regarding her funiture with a view to selling it. So one else was present when she interviewed Russell. Later he made an offer of £ls for everything. Her father was present when offer was made. Did not acceptthe offer. Her father then said he would take the furniture to Johnson's auction room. To this defendant said: "It is no good going there, as there is no auction room, Johnson is going down." Did not remember anything being said about a license. Russell then offered £2O for the furniture, which offer was accepted. She understood the statement to imply that Johnson had gone bankrupt, and it was this reason that prevented her from taking the furniture to Johnson's rooms. Cross-examined witness admitted selling pieces of oilcloth to Hodge, second hand dealer. Her father was present all the time the second interview with defendant was hold. In reference to statement made to plaintiff's solicitor witness denied having told plaintiff what the statement was to be. George Ashdown, settler, residing at Eketahuna, deposed to knowing defendant who went to his daughter's house taking an entry of furniture for purpose of purchasing it. He offered £ls for the furniture, to which witness said ho would take it up to Johnson's auction room. To this defendant replied that plaintiff had "g;me down" and lost his license. Tli.mi lie said he would offer £2O for the' furniture, which was accepted. The reason for selling the i'urnitiire-to defendant was in order that his da'iiditor might get out of debt. Cross-examined witness said his daughter could hear the words uttered by defendant. Did not have a talk with his daughter before coming to the Court. Plaintiff, recalled, regarding *.a'o.«. stated that he had several sales .luring January, one on the 18th.. one on the 21st., and also one in the early part of January. Charles O'Lauchlin, carpenter, remembered being in defendant's shopon or about 20th. January. He iwis wishing to but a saw, which was offered at 2s 6d. Ho then told defendant that he could have bought three saws for Is Od at plaintiff's, auction sale. To this defendant said that plaintiff'sauctioneering days were over as ha

couldn't find £4O for his license. Wit.

ness then asked was that the reason Mr Evans was auctioneering in the sale in Worksop Road. To this defondant answered in the affi-rmatLv?. Ho then said that with drink etc. plaintiff had about "cooked himself." Witness admitted to having mentioned this conversation with defendant. Cross-examined, witness said he did not often visit defendant's shop. The last time was either on 19th. or 20th. January. He quite remembered the ' conversation he had had. This finished the evidence for plaintiff. Mr Hollrngs applied for a nonsuit on the ground that the words complained of were not proved, th?re being considerable variation in the evidence submitted by the chief witness?s, regarding the statements made by defendant. Maud Julia Russell, wife of defendant, deposed to remembering her husband having a conversation with Arabella Scorrar. The latter asked for an easy chair, to which witness took-her into the shop and showed her a chair. Miss Scorrar then said she would prefer to wait as some chairs would be for sale at Johnson's auction room. Some convereation followed regarding a salo of furniture. Quite s.ure her husband made no reference to plaintiff losing his license, because he could not pay for it. Cross-examined, witness said defendant was the first to, mention Mrs Stewart's name. Asked" whether her husband had been a private detective during the time he carried on business, witness admitted that hj.? di r " some business in that line, such as divorce cases. Witness did" not think that, her husband knew what evidence, she .was going-to give in the. witness box. They ha<l discussed the case previously, but defendant had only once asked her what she heard during his conversation with Miss Scorrar. Henry John Frederick Harding, painter, deposed to knowing both plaintiff and defendant. Remembered being at defendant's shop on 23rd. January, and while there saw Miss Scorrar coming into tho shop, and while waiting for a reply on the telephone, he heard her ask Mr Russell about an easy chair. She said the chairs were too dear and she would wait, .as plaintiff had some chairs for sale in Worksop Road. Defendant then said plaintiff was too late"as he had already purchased the chairs. Miss Scorrar left before him. He must have heard the whole conversation. Cross-examined witness said this happened sometime before 12 o'clock, He was quite sure of this. He was not working that day. He was working at Kuripuni on the previous day. He was looking for a house as it was a "dirty day." He was working on Anniversary Day. He saw Miss Scorrar pass the kitchen door. He did not see defendant to speak to from the time 'he was in the shop to the time he received his summons. Robert Russell, plaintiff, stated that he went to Mrs Stewart's house and purchased the furniture" for £2O. Mrs Stewart and George Ashdown's aocounts iof the «onversation were not true. When the conversation took place George Ashdown was present. He offered Mrs- Stewart £ls for furniture; which she said was very small. Mr Hodge, another second hand dealer had offered her £26, she said. Witness said she had better take this. Ashdown said that if she did not get more for the furniture, it would have to go to Johnson's auction room. To this witness said Johnson could not buy it, as he had no second hand dealer's license. He said nothing about Johnson "going down." Defendant then said Johnson had not au auctioneer's license. He then offered £2O for the furniture, which was accepted. He /remembered having a conversation with Arabella Scorrar, which was not tho same as given by the latter in her evidence. Defendant said he met plaintiff once after he (defendant) had received a letter asking for an apology for statements made regarding plaintiff. He asked plaintiff what lie had to apologise for, and plaintiff said he bad to apologise for statements made by defendant to George Ashdown. Defendant said he would out apologise for what he had not said. Plaintiff then said lie had six witnesses to prove that defendant had made the statements and he would "have some stuff out of him for it." Cross-examined by -Mr Myers, defendant denied having offered Nina Stewart £5 to have her on his side of the case. He admitted to knowing that Mr Hubbard was a juror and had spoken to him, knowing this. He remembered Miss iScorrar coming into -his ishop. The time would be between 10.30 and 11.30 o'clock. This completed the evidence for tho defence. The jury, after an hour's retirement, returned a verdict for defendant, costs being allowed on the scale of the damages claimed.