The jury in a High Court defamation action by solicitor Gerald Kean will resume deliberating on a verdict tomorrow.
Mr Kean has sued over an article in the Irish Daily Star on May 11th 2016 which was headlined "Kean caught up in CAB probe".
Mr Kean alleges he was defamed in the article which he says wrongly meant he was linked to gangland crime and has damaged him personally and in his practice as a solicitor.
The newspaper denies the claims.
The court heard CAB officers visited his offices on May 9th 2016 with a view to getting a conveyancing file relating to the purchase in 2015 of a house at Kildare Road, Crumlin by a client of the firm, Dubliner Seán McGovern, whom CAB suspected of involvement with the Kinahan crime gang.
CAB had secured warrants from the District Court to search 18 premises, including Mr Kean's, on March 9th 2016 as part of its long-running investigation into the assets of the Kinahan gang.
The file was provided to the CAB officers by Mr Kean's office and a senior CAB officer told the court it ultimately lead to Mr McGovern's house being forfeit to the State as the proceeds of crime.
Independent Star Ltd denied defamation and also pleaded fair and reasonable publication for purpose of discussion of a matter of public interest in the public benefit.
The jury began deliberating this afternoon but after almost three hours were sent home for the evening and will resume deliberating tomorrow.
Earlier the jury was told it must consider three questions.
The first asks whether the article meant Mr Kean was subject of a probe by CAB into the criminal activities of the Hutch/Kinahan gang following the Regency Hotel shootings and was suspected by CAB of being associated with gangland crime and of facilitating criminal activity in his profession as a solicitor.
If they find the article did not bear any of those meanings, that is the end of the case.
If they find it meant any or all of the meanings alleged, they go on consider question two.
It asks, in the circumstances of the case, whether the manner and extent of publication was no more than "reasonably sufficient" and whether the article was published in the course of, or for the purpose of, the discussion of a subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit and was it "fair and reasonable" to publish the statement.
Question three concerns assessment of damages and is dependent on how the jury answer the first two questions.