SLANDER ACTION

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 53, Issue 207, 14 June 1933, Page 3

SLANDER ACTION

CHEMICAL FORMULA CASE.

EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENCE.

(per Press Association). WELLINGTON, June 13

The case in which Reginald Charles Bodclie, sales organiser, Wellington, alleges slander against James Dickson Sievwright, retired, also of Wellington, and claims £2500 damages, was continued in the Supreme Court today before his Honor Mr Justice Ostler. Plaintiff complains of statements alleged to have been made falsely and maliciously by the defendant to one H. J. Loekyer affecting plaintiff’s credit and reputation in connection with the business of a syndicate for the manufacture of a chemical preparation in which the parties are' associated. Evidence on behalf of defendant was given by Ralph Neville White, solicitor, Auckland, who said that his firm acted for the Ideal Loan Company. The plaintiff, Boddie, in May, 1929, owed the company £lO5. He paid £25 in cTisli and gave the company a bill of sale over certain chattels for the remainder. In May', 1930, plaintiff was located in Christchurch, and after a summons had been issued plaintiff wrote to the secretary of the company admitting that he owed the money and had sold the chattels mentioned in the bill of sale. When Mr Evans-Scott was crossexamining witness on the various bills of sale executed by the plaintiff, bis Honor interposed, “Well, all the juggling in the world will not get over the admission made by this man in his own handwriting. He gave a bill of sale over a truck and certain furniture and then sold them, which is absolutely illegal and a criminal'act, He cleared out with the money, leaving the mortgagee behind.” Evidence was given by Marguerite Helen Miller regarding an agreement with Boddie which she signed. William Thompson Neill, a retired public servant, of ’Wellington, said that he was offered a one-sixth share iiv the business for £75. Ho subsequently took a twelfth share for £37 10s. He considered that Boddie had not been straight and honest. There had been occasions on which he had not been entirely truthful. In "view of witness s knowledge to-day, Boddie itid not tell him the true position ol affairs. He considered that ho had been misled by Boddie. After hearing other evidence the hearing was adjourned till to-moi-row.