CLAIM FOR DAMAGES.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XLVII, Issue 10926, 26 May 1927, Page 4

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES.

EX-CONSTABLE SEEKS £IOOO.

CASE AGAINST THE COM-

MISSIONEII

(Per Press Association^. CHRISTCHURCH, This Day. Alleging that a defamatory statement had been published about him, William Victor Sanvig, an ex-constable, sued W. B. Mcllvenev (Commissioner of Police) for £IOOO damages at the Supreme Court to-day. The statement of claim set out that on June 23, 1926, the Commissioner falsely and maliciously caused to be published in the “Police Gazette,” circulated among police officers, the following defamatory statement: “Discharged upon the exercise of the C ommissioner’s opinion, under Section 9 of the Police Force Act: Constable William Victor Sanvig” ; whereas he was discharged upon his otVn resignation as shown by the certificate of his disenarge. As a result of the publication he had been greatly prejudiced and injured in his credit and reputation, and had been brought into public scandal, hatred and contempt. The Commissioner denied that he published the words complained of, or that he had published them maliciously. As a further defence, it was stated that on May 26, 1926, Sanvig was charged before the Superintendent at Christchurch under Regulation No. 353, with disobedience of the lawful order of a superior. On this charge he was convicted and fined £l. On the following day he tendered his, resignation from the force. He omitted,, and later refused, to comply with' Section 15 of the Police Force Act, which provides that no member of the force may resign his office unless expressly authorised in writing to do so by the Commissioner, or unless he has given the Commissioner one month’s notice in writing of his intention to resign. La textile Commissioner dismissed Sanvig, but subsequently Sanvig asked the Minister of Justice to give him a discharge in a form that would enable him to procure employment. The Minister, without revoking the dismissal, directed the Commissioner to give Sanvig a discharge ip some form that would enable him to procure employment. For further defence, the Commissioner claimed that publication was privileged. The “Police Gazette,” it was claimed, was a confidential publication. Mr Sargent (for Sanvig) said the case was of particular interest to junipr members of the Police Force. Sanvig was an excellent officer until there was a peculiar affair at the Central Station. In May last, instructions were given by the* Senior Sergeant thait the constable on night duty should wash up the dishes after the evening meal. Sanvig felt that it was not a lawful command, and did not comply. He was fined £1 for disobedience. He, with others, gave notice of appeal, and put in his resignation. The (Superintendent said it would not be accepted, and he was told practically to get out straight away. After hearing evidence, Mr Justice Adams said that in view of what Sanvig had admitted there was no case to go to the jury. It was his Honor’s duty to arrest the case at that stage. Judgment would be given for defendant with costs as between solicitor and client.