DISTRICT COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XI, Issue 3687, 15 December 1890, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

MASTERTON-SATURDAY, (Before His "Honor tiistnol' Judge s Robinson.) „ 1 i i —-j { pKi ( » ....... ,jSEDCO!iE,yBEESB.r^I-.j* , ;;-;;5.5. ? a yfe?»fy' ! WiisohKwiio"-r : l isamembergJlie Pahiatua 1 Lice?.-S^ ; the forthe grantihVoflicense's to HugheaV <'vt dnfcOhristiansenlOi I h •-. -r-jii '-f$ ! William i Eager;,;oorroboratedk the -li evidence with regard to. a pledee, v;J ana.> stated furtherVihat^Sefe^ l had admitted being (offered a bribe, ■■ '•'■ -": £ ! and wanted to divide with him. '•■ ; ■ '£s A.'W. Hogg, journalist; called by ; ' : ; #; Mr PowriaMtateitbßl the words k : '-M Mr the amountof which,"were vaguer ana :; ! might They might an amount - ,of friendaliip)' or support in a''Tbwn :; '-: V Board election*, Had the letter bden ■>■s. Submitted t6;bim;h>:wou]d haye'hacH: publisliirig, it.T'"Any ' man;JAvith ■ slainlesa "obirabtei;*;.- 'O. wpuld.,, bave,.;.takea ,noriibticei 'of''' '■- 1 it. Ttowasione; of. tlid..flimsiestv -' actions for libellie had ,t heard,.' #i and he bad heard a'few.. ""W> .->. ■>.- ;S ■ 'Mr : -A yourHpiubr;" :t': •; [ -s'k'^K fM Honor: ; iownot:'awo!^ ! ' :■" jury tp Hogg's opwv'v. upon the nature of the case, -»; : ,-Y'-V--. : ; ' tuat Mr KeSse was oiio of your chief- -:;i----ppprtersjn the late election? ■■'■/■■ ■' Mr Hogg: Not to my knowledge.'S' : Not to.your knowledge? Do you 'S not know that be worked ! iooUi''AridV-■■' nail for you ? V? f.Ji ■■■:■■! ' nil?"' ■-: . ; Nptto my pwXkhowlo'dge; : '!;t -am;, >' ; •; given.teflnderstand'he{assisted. -mr-.'' '-"' candidature;•->.-.:■/«,; .^.i^M^-'i"'^ ■■■■■ tlienijiowi ■ ! muoli reliance to put Upbn : tha ; Btate?< ': merit of this witness,- : '' li 'i ,, '' :; "' •'*•*•* ,"Mf'PolaH"tlien ,; addreld'W' ; ?' i juryat considerable length for,iUft' - 1 defohce, contending that' the plain-v' tiff's case had, completely failed, ■^r : : Mr Tosswill followed, and reviewed 1 "'A the evidence at some length. •-:'; 1 '; •.: •I;HisHbjiofliii'direotmg'tbe ;f jury, ; ' pointed, out yHat i/ libel and! referred"to the' evidence, ! -- ■ adduced, v;; ,j ti ;.,-' '.-■ '■"". ; Tbii following issues were submit • tad to the jury, with the result as i Shown:- jJL ;■ J ; 1. Was the publication libellop~ : l No. <:' -•' ?v - ■ ' 2. "Was defendant justified by the faots in publiahirig the letter 7—Yes. , ", 1 .8, To; What amount of, general • damapii tlio'plaintiff.!eattU&P ;; • None, '.■■'■'• 3 4. Did the plaintiff lose Town ■"? ; Board eleption ; inbdb"iequenoe of |tji.e, - alleged,,libel,';and,if so| to'whaf ■;■ i amount :;pf. speoial damages is r k entitled ?_ r l{o and none. <,;:; .;iwi ■. ! . His Henor';tbdri ; -entered up judg*- 1 . t rnent in accordanco with the findings/ f wilbco'staj-igaC,'' ■'■■■■( ■:": *>■■*■ ■■■'