THE HAMILTON SLANDER CASE.

Waikato Times, Volume XVII, Issue 1416, 30 July 1881, Page 2

THE HAMILTON SLANDER CASE.

At the Supreme Court, Auckland, in Banco, on Wednesday, before Justice Gillies, Mr McCormick moved for a rule nisi, for a new trial in the case Crawford v. Johnston. The following report of what took place is from our Auckland morning contemporary : — Mr McCormick said the action was for slander and defamation, and tried at the last circuit sittings. The plaintiff is a domestic servant, and the slanderous words alleged to have been used by the defendant were that plaintiff had "had a miscarriage," and had to leave her situation. The defendant is an hotelkeeper in Hamilton. — His Honor : The jury found that the words were used m speaking to Captain Dawson, and were unheared by anyone else. Captain Dawson was the girl's former employer, and it was averred, as part of the defence, that the defendant was desirous to know the girl's character before engaging her as a servant. The jury found that the words were uttered without malice. Mr McCormick : The defendant attempted to justify the libel, at the same time that he said he had not uttered the libel alleged. How could he justify what he said he had not spoken ? The jury had found that he did speak the words ; that they were false, but were spoken without malice. But falsehood implied malice in the interpretation of law. A person could not be allowed to fabricate a false statement, and then say when he had done an injury that no injury was intended. Mr dimming did not tell him that the girl had a miscarriage. The girl, who was admitted to be perfectly innocent of any blame or imputation, had suffered an injury. — His Honor : The law states that there are circumstances of a confidential character in which such a communication as that made to Captain Dawson is privileged. The jury said this was an occasion of the kind. If I had been on the jury, I would have found as they did. The publication of the alleged libel lay rather with Captain Dawson, who told someone else, and that someone else told others. — Mr MacCormick ; The defendant clearly said that he had not uttered the words, and yet there was a plea of justification which the jury found for the defendant. How could there be a plea of justification when the words were never spoken ?—? — His Honor : The defendant admitted that words were spoken to the like effect as those of the slander. — Mr MacCormick : When the defendant was called upon to retract and apologise, he refused. That was a persistence in the libel, and indicated malice. — His Honor : The jury were the judges of the effect of the libellous words. They found they were not spoken with malice. I must say I agree with the finding of the jury.— Mr MacCormick': Your Honor having that opinion I shall not pres3 the matter further. — Rule refused. — Mr MacCormick : I shall ask your Honor for leave to appeal. — His Honor: The jury were, the sole judges of the facts. I cannot see any ground for saying that the verdict was against the weight of evidence.— Mr MacCormick : But, as a matter of law, a false statement implies malice. — His Honor: But the jury, looking at the surrounding circumstances, which were matters of fact, found that there was no malice, that in effect the communication was privileged. I do not see that the Court of Appeal could aaaiit you. — Leave to appeal refused.

iCaz total immigration to New York for the month of May exceeds 75,000. Thk Strana, a Russian journal, calculates that every ton of shipping built for the Russian navy costs nearly 1000 roubles; while in England the average cost per ton is only 439 roubles. During the passage of the steamship John Elder from Plymouth to Melbourne, some thief stole a gold watch and a lot of medals from the Roman Catholic Bishop of Adelaide. The watch was a present from the Pope.