ALLEGED SLANDER.

Auckland Star, Volume XXI, Issue 35, 12 February 1890, Page 8

ALLEGED SLANDER.

HUMPHREYS V. RAE,

EVIDENCE CONCLUDED.

After we went to press yesterday the following evidence was given in at tha Supreme Court in the case of T. M. Humphreys v. J. Rae, claim £1,250, as damages for alleged slander. Mr J. A. Tole appeared for plaintiff, and Messrs E. Hesketh and C. E. Button for defendant.

In re-examination by Mr Button, James Rae, the defendant, said that Humphreys had occasionally acted as solicitor for him. Ha once gave Humphreys authority to issue a writ against a woman. Humphreys offered to get hi 3 costs out of the other side, and said it was often done by solicitors. Witness had to pay for it afterwards. Another day at the R.M. Court, Mr Humphreys said to him thab he would conduct his case in the Court, and it should cost witness nothing. Humphreys lost the case, and witness had to pay costs £2. Mr Humphreys waa not his solicitor, because Mr Heaksth had done his business for many years. Witness further stated that Mr Humphreys used to go to his place for dinner every Sunday beforo this occurred. Then they went to church together. Humphreys wanted to join the church and made arrangements to be baptised into it. The water was prepared for his baptism. (Laughter.) Mr Aidridge could not refuse to immerse Mr Humphreys ; but he wrote him stating that he could not allow him church fellowship ou account of the quarrel with witness. Robert Dukes Glover, clerk, deposed to being present in the Nevada Hotel on Thursday morning, the 12th of December. Both Loram, Mcllhone, and John Barrett (licensee of the hotel) were in his company. Amongst other conversation Loram said that he had receiveda promissory note from Mr Humphreys for £50 for one month, to Give evidence on his behalf "in the case of Humphreys v. Rae. Mr Loram showed them the note. Mcllhone advised Loram to get the note discounted. Loram said to him that he could not get the note discounted, as ha had to hold it over until after the trial. Loram said he would go to Mr Humphreys and get £5 on account. Cross-examined by Mr Tole: Witness would do clerk's work for anyone who would give him a job. He had not done clerking for Rae, and did not do bookmaking. Ha had made money bebs. He was tried the previous day by some one who wanted to have him, but they could not get him. He had not made a wager for drinks with a man named Houlihan. °He had known Loram many years, and thought him an honest man. He had known Rae 14 or 15 years. Witness did not tell Rae of the interview with Loram. He first saw Rae five days afterwards. Witness and Mr Mcllhone did do electioneering together. Witness here caused a laugh by adding, «■ We helped you, Mr Tole." Mr Tole : You don't seem to have helped me much laat time.

Witness : I did my best, and will do ifc again for you, Mr Tole. Hugh Mcllhone wa3 recalled, and deposed that he was present in the Nevada Hotel when Mr Loram and the last witness were there. He remembered Loram speakin p about a p.n. He said it was from Mr Humphreys for £50, payable in one month, for attending the Court and giving avidenee in the case cf Humphreys v. Rae. Witness said that surely it could not be possible that a man like Mr Humphreys should give a p.n. to anybody to give evidence in that way.

Loram replied that it was so, and produced the p.n. and showed it to them. Witness said he did not think it was much good, and recommended Loram to get it discounted. Loram said he could not do that, as he had got the note conditionally and could not part with it until after the trial. He said that in order to have something he would go and try Humphreys for a fiver. By Mr Tole : Witness was present in the corridor of the Court when the betting took placs. He looked upon it as fun. He considered Loram a truthful man, who would not exaggerata for money. This concluded the evidence. Mr Hesketh then addressed the jury in an able speech, which occupied an hour in delivery. Mr Tole next addressed the jury on behalf of the plaintiff. He said : " Before I begin to review the evidence I should like in justice to myself co make an explanation.- It is with regard to the promissory note. Such a thing ia a shock to one's moral sense, and it "gave me considerable anxiety the whole of last night, and at one moment I was debating in my mind whether ib was not my duty to throw up my my brief ; but I felt that ib would be cowardly, and unworthy the intrepidity of my profession, after having proceeded so far in the case to forsake my client —at the last moment. Conscientiously believing that, I felt that it would be a sorry day for New Zealand if any man should be forsaken at a moment of this kind, and not have an advocate to plead his case before a jury of his countryman." Mr Tole then spoke for over an hour and a half, carefully reviewing the evidence for the plaintiff, and criticising that adduced for the defence.

His Honor decided that he would not sum up the evidence until this morning.