ALLEGED LIBEL CASE.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XII, Issue 3922, 25 September 1891, Page 2

ALLEGED LIBEL CASE.

Murdoch v- Payton.

In the District Court, Masterton, this morning, before His Honor District Judge Eobinson, and a jury of four, William Murdoch claimed the sum of £IOO from Joseph Payton, proprietor of the Waibarapa Daily, for alleged libel contained in the publication of the following paragraph : —" The calm and peaceful slumbers of Eketahuna wero suddenly aroused on Saturday night by some of the most awful and hideous sounds, such as the beating of old kerosene tins, the ringing of bells and the whirr of song. On meditating as to the cause, and collecting one's scattered senses, it suddenly dawned on the mind that it had been reported that a certain wellknown citizen who has had several ups and downs in life, and who now fills the more honorable position of reporter, lawyer, etc., had takenjtffl himself a partner, one could cot ascertain). of importance couple for about tune above abundanceJj^^^^^^^^^^^^H Mr tiffuf^^^^^^^^^^^H

graph could have referred to other than the plaintiff. He did propose to enlarge upon the ease but he would prove that the graph was defamatory. It was by the defence that the pm-agiaph tme^^^^^^H There would nox<irJuoTbe mont on Una-point.. But it also for the jury to decide the article was defamatory on the of it. Ho thought be would be to show that the paragraph was unjustified, and oould not have of interest to the readers of a respectable paper. As the till was only dismissed from Mr i H Gould's employ after he had taken action, this could only be accepted as M a probable cause for his dismissal. *1 The paragraph was no doubt funny, - \' very funny for the Daily, but in a small township like, fiketa« huna it was calculated to <f£3JMMH| harm. Although the paragraph might be frivolous he would show that it had done injury. Albert William Gould, sworn, stated: lam a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court, practising at Eketahuua and Pahiatua. The plaintiff was till the 2nd or Brd of this month in my employ. Be had been employed by me for about twenty— __ months previously Up. tillNovoinhdßt;;, last he whs paid £2 a, and since then JBla week, as he to reporting for a newspaper. I have . J seen the paragraph m the Dailt I referred to. After reading it I came * to the conclusion it referred to Mr Murdoch.

Mr Beard objected to this evidence as there was nothing in the claim showing that the inuendo referred to Mr Murdoch, His Honor : My opinion ia that the want of inuendo is serious. There 1% no admission in the statement of claim that the inuendo is of the plain* tiff. Mr Pownall: I shall show you this in the evidence. His Honor: It has been held before that an inuendo is, necessary. Mr Beard : I am your Honor should will rai^^^^^^^^f Mr Pownall: I^^^^^^^^^H frien^^^^^^^^^^H now. JL "^^^^^^^^^| Honor that the inuena^^^^^^^H sary. There quite s^^^^^^^H ence to the inuendo in were " of the plaintiff." His Honor oonsented^JH^H with the evidence. *"■ \VH

The witness, continuing, stadVfl For several reasons I concluded wBJ the paragraph referred to Mr MiflJ doch, one being that he was the owW lawyer's clerk in Eketahuna. I knew™, too, that he was a reporter of thl Eketahuna and Fahiatua Mail, m also knew that he had had ups downs in life. I had no hesitation jnj forming the opinion that the para-1 graph referred to the plaintiff. It 1 would be improper for me to b*J associated with anybody with an ittEW moral character, and I wrote t|>|. Murdooh discharging him. y|| Mr Beard : I objeot to this evid'fenoe. It refers to the inuendo at' once.

The witness : I refer to his taking a life partner. Mr Beard : The paragraph may refer to a partner as a lawyer, The witness : I regard ence as injurious to the plqi^^^^B Mr Beard: I objeot to^^^^^H Mr Fownall: Will "!■*_*■■■ his grounds for objeotidßa^^^^H of an lnuenao in the^^^^^^H His Honor said it see how the want of iqAvLVBLVfIJ be The pU^^^^^^^H mentioned in the parbBAvLVBLVJ Mr Pownall 1 amjBHHHHHH to accept a non-suit only referring to the omvBHHHHJ ing on the face the poflA^^^^^H His Honor A i >n of defamation must Mr Pownall: I will show b j prima facie evidenoe words are defamatory on tU'e «■ Mr Beard : But the inuendo mVfl be shown.

His Honor : Do you Mj Pownall, that the paragraph is libffl lous in itself? _■ Mr Pownall: I do, your Honoj^l The examination of the was continued by consent. At the time of seeing thfMggpP|Ll I knew of no ~v..zjA the paragraph on And September. I then went Lu to my office and wrote a letter,"dismissing the plaintiff from ray employ. I dismissed him purglvy in consequence of the paragraph. '&f had no other fault to find with him. The plaintiff came to remonstrate with me afterwards, and told me ha was taking aotion. 1 don't personally know of anything against the oharao* ter or repute of the plaintiff since ha has been in my employ. , By Mr Beard: I first saw the paragraph in the Library. Murdoch i had not communicated with me] about it. Up till this time I had no] fault to find with Murdooh. I heard I reports yesterday in Maßtertoni against his character for the first! time. The charges were not oi in immoral oharacter. Murdoch is onln my clerk. He is not a qualifi« practitioner. He told me lie v/tM reporter to the Ekeiahuna anV Pahiatua Mail which is tho same aa the Wairarapa Star. They are both, ' I believe, published by Mr J/j ■L. gLnrith. The plaintiff hail that he had bafl This was onfl that UH