No corrections yet
SUPKEME COURT ¡PEOCEEDINGS.
I During the week the Full-Court has been occu pied 'with Equity appeals/: in regard to > which there is no progress ^ to be reported. Sir. W. Manning has been busy with Equity and divorce cases ; Mr. Justice Faucett has beeu engaged at the Central Criminal Court;, and Mr. Justice Innés has taken the hearing of Sydney causes in the Jury Court. Saturday, May 28, was the last day of the second Term. Mr, B. R. Wise pre sented his commission as Attorney-Général, and was congratulated by the Bench. Mr. F. B. Barlee, of the Sydney-University, was admitted as a barrister. ? ? r '?> ??'? <,? . ; , - ,
' . : ADMISSION Of ATTORNEYS. .
The following gentlemen were admitted'after examination : John Alexander Cormack, Henry Oliver Heath, Thomas Hughes, Neville Wharn cliffe Montagu, Walter George Parish, Charles William Schroder, James Campbell Thorne, James Francis Thomas, and William E. Dwyer. The following solicitors from abroad were conditionally admitted for twelve months: George Joseph Blackwell, Ireland j William Davies Downing, England ; Alexander Matheson, Scotland j Bichárd George Cameron Roberts, England; Michael Joseph Nugent Byan, Ireland; James Cleeland Shaw, Victoria; and Walter Wild, England. The conditional admission of Mr, A. G. M. Friend was confirmed.
A CATTLE STEALING CASH.
- One White waa convicted at the last Armidale Circuit Court, upon a charge of having stolen a bullock, the property of Thomas Cook. The evidence as to the stealing was conclusive ; but
j the doubt now raised upon an application to quash the conviction, was whether there was any evidence of ownership of the beast by Cook. Now, the law ordinarily is that the exact ownership of stolen property must be not only stated in the information, but actually proved as stated. If there be doubt upon the subject tho accused is entitled to the benefit of it. Hero. Cook had certainly bought certain cattle, among which was the stolen animal, and put his own brand on them. Ho sold a certain number of them, and all he sold were sent to the Melbourne market, but he could not say whether this particular boast was actually sold or sent. In those circumstances there was some, though perhaps vey slight, evidence of Cook's ownership to go to the jury; and the Court therefore affirmed the conviction of White.
THE AUSTRALIAN JOCKEY CLUB.
The most sensational, and in some respects most important case of tho week bas been a libel aotion tried before Mr. Justice Innes in tho Jury Court. This action was brought by Nicholas Hoad, of Orange, against James Whito, as nominal defendant, for tho Australian Jockoy Club, of which ho is chairman, to recover damages for alleged libel in having in a publi cation entitled "Australian Jockey Club Re gister of Disqualifications,'* falsely and mali ciously printed concerning the plaintiff that he was disqualified for ever by the Orange Jockey Club on April 2A, 1885, for insulting lan
guage. Tho plaintiff: laid his damages at Ü10C and the defendant simply, pleaded'not guilty.^
appeared from the evidence that the plaintiff w proprietor, editor, and reporter of the OBAN< LIBERAL, and in the year 1884 was a member tho Orange Jockey Club, lie declined to contim his membership, and in March and April, 188 was not actually a member. The Orange Cliib : it may here be mentioned, registered by ai works under the rules of the A.J.C. Theplaint went to the March race meeting at Orange as reporter, and passed in on tho first day withoi paying j but when on the - ground was asked f the admission money, which'he paid-, and paid ; the gate on the second day. He positively deni« that he had made ure on either occasion
any insulting observations with regard to tl committee bf the club, though on cross-examin tion he admitted that he felt angry, excited, ax humiliated at the manner in which ho had bee treated in being called upon to pay after heir admitted free as a reporter. He denied that 1 stigmatised the club ¿sa" lot of blacklegs,-' < that he referred to the secretary, Mr. Mulhc land, in strong terms as a "whippersnapper wi had sent to him for his ticket." He, howe ve admitted that in the ORANGE LIBERAL issued aft the date of the race meeting, he, as editor, wro' about the deterioration in the attendance at tl meeting ; and also made use of - the followii remarks : " Our importance as a district, and tl regularly increasing population, at least doman« that the grosser elements of blacklegism shou be eliminated -from our annual meeting . . . Among those in control ? of tl affairs of the club are some of tl most rascally and contemptible, some ah being blacklegs, that ever infested and disgrace a small community ; but, on the other han there are good and decent men among them, oi of consideration for whom, in the latest develo] ment in connection with our race meeting, v refrain from publishing the names." For th language an apology ana explanation were subsi quently published by him in his newspaper, i the course of which he said that the objectionah remarks were made " under a misaprehensioi and while smarting under what he considere a wrong and indignity inflicted upon him, in fin being admitted as a representative of the pres and afterward waited upon for paymont, with th alternative of his removal from the. ground. On January 1 this year he saw and obtained froi the saddling paddock of the Orange racecoura where it had been posted up, a register list < disqualifications1 published by the A.J.C and in- which his name appeared a having been disqualified by the Orange Jocke Club for ever for insulting language. ' Next day h wrote'tb Mr.-Clibborn, the secretary bf the A.JÏG protesting > against the publication of his name and pointing-out that his name had bee; associated on the register with men who had bee: disqualified for various malpractices, some *bf'-'. very serious character, and demanding that hi name should be at once withdrawn. In replj Mr. Clibborn merely referred him to the Orang jockey Club ; and, in default of obtaining ' 'an satisfaction from the club, he began the presen action. , It was farther shown that the, registe list was forwarded by Mr. Clibborn not only t the Orange ; Club, but circulated among all th racing clubs registeredi with. the A.J.Ç. ; n ',
This was the plaintiff's case1; and ', for i *a defence, two witnesses^ were called, ' who dépose* to having.hoardhim' iori the first day bf the Maro! races use some strong language, being mud annoyed at payment being demanded from him but they could not say as to whom the wbrd referred. A nonsuit was moved for, on'tb* ground that tho plaintiff had shown no authority for suing. Mr. White as nominal direotor. Bu" this was overruled by the judge, as was also'th< technical objection that the A.J.C. not being ai incorporated body could not be sued for libel His Honor preferred to leave the matter bf fae to be decided by the jury, the points of law bemj of course arguable thereafter Û, necessary. -
Mr. Justice Innes, in summing up af te; defining the usual law as to, libel, told the ¡jurj that they could have but little doubt that it was j libel to publish the plaintiff's name in this regis ter, associated as'it was with persons whohad beei disqualified for suspicious running,pulling a horse fraudulent entry, fraudulent nomination, fraudu lent practices, malpractice, being a defaulter ii betting, suspicious riding, &c», and that it was calculated to hold the plaintiff up to ridicule, anc bringhim into public disrepute. If they said that il was a libel then the plaintiff would be entitled to s verdict, inasmuch as there was no plea of justifi cation ; and the only other question would be the amount of the damages. He then reviewed, the evidence upon this aspect of the case, and reverted to the conduct adopted by the A.J.C, It seemed to him, ho said, to be an entirely wrong thing on tho part of tho Jockey Club tc publish a notice of this kind ; and they were not authorised in any way to do it ; and, as far as the law was concerned, they certainly were not justified. No doubt it might give them a check upon misconduct if they had some way of punishing persons, who were guilty of practices of tho kind Î but they must remombor that this notice was not merely pub lished by thom and the Orange Jockoy Club, but was sent to between seventy or eighty clubs registered with tho defendant club, and con tinued to bo sent out from timo io time, until, to use the evidence of Clibborn,. some radical change took place, and the names were removed. That -waa a power which no in stitution in tho colony ought to exercise, and if they thought tho publication of this Hst was alto gether out of proportion to the wrong doing of which plaintiff himself was guilty, they would be justified in finding in his favor, with substan tial damages. But if they thought that the plaintiff had no one.but himsolf to thank for it, and that although thoy were not entitled to pub lish thia libel, yet that tho plaintiff by his con duct brought it upon himself, they would give him a verdict for nominal damages only." The jury, after retiring for half an hour,, found a verdict for 'tho' p^airnSuT,' with à farthing
. ¿-. l-.'.fO:' <;?.,*::[ it;,'., c. .. ? ...
damages ; and' Hé "BTonöf " 'declined' to~ certify föü"
COBtei'-';ii v.-.w hhtiyJ 1<» WO.:Í;. ' -JÍÍT .ÍV.f.
Í ¡ »rvoncB COTTBT.?'" .-;..:T
The following suite have been * decided during? tbe week :-Decrees nisi-were granted for divorce in the cases of Keysor '.y, Keys'or (wife against busband), Simpson y. Simpson (husband against wife), Mitchell -v. Mitchell (wife against hus band), Towne v. Towno (wife against husband), Baker v. Baker (wife against husband), Walsh v. Walsh (husband against wife), Davies v. Davies (husband against wife). In tho case Bardsley v. Bardsley a judicial separation was granted at the suit of the wife. In re M'Garry v. M'Garry and. Pike, tried, by a jury, the wife was found guilty of adultery, with", thé, co-respondent ; . and. the dame ages payable hy bim. were assessed at ¿500.. . '