ALLEGED SLANDER.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 14244, 15 December 1909, Page 8

ALLEGED SLANDER.

WHO STOLE THE OYSTERS FISHERMAN'S CLAIM. Montague Gaunattt, fisherman, residing at Devonport, brought an action for slander against James Phillips Bennett, inspector of the Government oyster depot.at Auckland, in the Supreme Court yesterday, before Mr. Justice Edwards and a common jury of four. The damages claimed were £250, and there were four grounds of alleged slander. Mr. Burton appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. Cotter, with Mr. Selwyn Mays, for the defendant. The plaintiff stated that while his yacht, the Patience, was out on lease, about two or three years ago, a load of oysters was stolen from the vessel. The police interviewed him and inspected a load of oysters which ho had delivered a day or two before. The owner of the stolen oysters, however, declared that they were not his. Nothing more was heard of the matter until June, 1907, when plaintiff learned that defendant had been accusing him of having stolen the oysters ifrom the Patience. When taxed with having done so defendant replied, "Yes, so you did steal them,' and you stole many other things." On a subsequent occasion, when the Minister for Marine (Hon. J. A. Millar) was inspecting the oyster beds at Putiki Bay, Waiheke, and while plaintiff was acting as spokesman on behalf of the oystermen in favour of altered provisions, defendant turned to the Minister and said, "Itis no use listening to that man, sir. He ! has been convicted three or four times for j smuggling oysters." Plaintiff admitted having been fined 10 or 12 years ago for taking oysters from closed beds. Defendant had told plaintiff and other people that he had received a letter from the secretary of the Marine Department stating that plaintiff had made application for a Government appointment and asking defendant to report upon his character. Defendant had displayed a letter, but plaintiff considered that ho had written it himself. Plaintiff denied having at any time made such application, cither written or verbal, but during the Minister's visit to Auckland the latter offered him an appointment. Plaintiff, however, considered that the salary was not sufficient.

Mr. Cotter Is your memory so bad that you cannot remember how many times you have been convicted? Plaintiff: I don't think so. Mr. Cotter: Were you convicted for illegally taking oysters in July, 1896?— Yes. Mr. Cotter: In the following month you were also convicted?l think that information was withdrawn. I never paid the fine. Mr. Cotter: Has not all, this trouble arisen because you did not believe that Bennett had authority to' make any inquiries concerning ypur character?—No, but I don't believe that he had. Mr. Cotter (reading a Departmental letter requesting defendant to report upon the character of tho plaintiff in connection with an application which he had made for an appointment): Is this the letter that Bennett showed you?— No. I think that was signed by Mr. Allport. Mr. Cotter: Were yon not greatly to blame in regard to the Patience oyster business by absolutely refusing to give the police the information which they asked for when the day following the theft yon had sold a load of oysters?l only refused to give them a written statement. lam not a scholar. ' Plaintiff was in the witness-box for considerably over two hours, and corroborative evidence was given by four seamen. They had heard the defendant make statements, connecting the plaintiff with the Patience theft and also reflecting upon his veracity. '

At 5.30 p.m. the case was adjourned until 11.30 a.m. to-day, to be called on after the delivery of reserved judgments.