Image TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage Tile
Image size: 4608x6144 Scale: 35% - PanoJS3
Page overview thumbnail

Article text

. Hobart Supreme Gourt; i -
?????' V:- v.'!': '- nOBA.'RTl'3hNn28.]
The Supreme Court, in its^ciriljuridjc-i
tion; sat to-day, before' the. Chief Justice
(Sir Lambert Dobspri).1 ..'!: ?- '.,'.?? '
JbHif ston v. Shgo. — The case, Bummed:
up briefly, showed, that Charlei, Johnston,
who was employed on' 'the ^Zeeliqri arid
Duridas Herald, took proceedings against
A. T. C. ?'? Slieo, the publiiher of
another paper called the Zeehan Adver
tiser, for failing to register the paper.
Johnston admitted' that he acted as a
common informer in the case, and that his
employers were' Btanding the cost of the
prosecution. Evidence was taken as to the
publication, which was riot denied. ', His
Honor stated that the law prdyidedi far
filing a declaration, but there was no
evidence to ghow thisjihad rnpt been done,
and'ori tbia point the evidence failed. ', He
held there was no case to go; to the jury.
He told Sligo that he had had a narrow
escape, and said that the best plan was to
withdraw the case, which was , done.
?? 'CansdeIiL y. Coos; —Slander,' !£500. The
case, wrapped upjri a nutshell, wat that the
plaintiff, Charles Stuart Cans dell, solicitor
; to the farmers' ' Cb-pp?ratiTe Milb,ng;C6mf '
; piariy, now being liquidated, accuaed Josepli,
Codki'.a 'weH-knowri fellmorigeryat/'Gifln-'
orohy, and' a director of the' company,' :jnth
?laridervng him at* meeting Held on March.
9; lasfc. '. The ''w'orils alleged, to 'ha^e'b'een,
'used 'by-' Cook were,' If thi»'bbmpanylhad
any other solicitor ;but Cansdell, tke/ would
mot have been in the .poiition|!they were
that day.' The.plsintiff stated he had not
had a client since; that, statement appeared,
poiating , to- the fact that his professional
-reputation was , damaged. The evidence
showed that the meeting was a stormy one, ? j ?
.the Innguase us»d being veiy heated.- At
?the1 auggeitibtO of hi3 Honor, counsel '^and
client put their heads together and
?decided . to bury the hatchet.,, the
defendant, stating that he did not
'wisri to- reflect on the' professional
reputation of the plaintiff; and the plaia
tiff . apologising through his.eoumel for
anything derogatory.ho had said concern
ing the defenijant,,' Tha Judge advised
both parties to shake hands and go'brit' df
.court as professional and business men arm
in arm, and said that in no case was either
of their reputations damaged. ?;? ., .,.5
Goscomb v^ Copk — Ejectment. ' ine
plaintiff deposod that he bought a piic&of
land in Upper Macquaiie-street, tenanted
? by George, Cope,1, who .refused to pay, rent
or vacate it. After. evidence hadbeen
given the jury found for , the plairitiffi'
The 'court then' rose. ' ''' Mll-:- s'''
$