CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 53, Issue 211, 19 June 1933, Page 8

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

ALLEGATION OF SLANDER.

• PLEA FOR JUSTIFICATION. (Per Press Association). WELLINGTON, June 17. The hearing of the claim for £2500 damages for alleged slander brought by Reginald Charles Boddie, sales organiser, of Wellington, against James Dickson Sievwright, retired, of Wellington, was continued in the Supreme Court to-day before Mr Justice Ostler. Plaintiff complained of statements alleged to have been made falsely and maliciously by defendant to one H. J. Lockyev, 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 were associated. For the defence it was submitted that the statements were made on occasions or qualified privilege without malice. G. A. Lawrence, analytical consulting chemist, said that from 1 an analysis which he made of the Clarogene preparation and the other preparation, Nados, produced by a Christchurch company, it was obvious that the two , products were manufactured from entirely different formulae. In answer to a question, witness said that the preparations contained, the same ingredients but not in the same proportions. Mr O'Leary, counsel for defendant, addressing the Court, said that so far as the case in general was concerned, the proceedings had shown, to use plaintiff's own words to Neill and Sievwright, that he was a msvn with no reputation to lose. If it came to an assessment of damages, then it was submitted that plaintiff's words could be applied and he would not be entitled to any damages. Counsel further submitted that all the occasions of the alleged use of the words were occasions of qualified privilege. He submitted that there was no. evidence that defendants used the occasions otherwise than honestly. On another branch of the defence, it was contended that it had been proved that Boddie was a rogue and that Avhat the defence set out to justify had been amply justified. Mr Evans-Scott, in his address,, submitted that the statements alleged by the plaintiff were clearly slanderous and that there was no justification for their rise. It was contended, among other things, that it had been shown from a legal point of view that the formula taken over by the Christchurch company and used by the company was not Mr Boddie's formula. •Dealing with the question of privilege, which he submitted did not exist, counsel said that, if there was any doubt about the matter, it was destroyed by the defendant's conduct. It had been shown, lie argued, that the defendant had acted maliciously. Counsel referred to testimonials as to Boddie's character and to the evidence of witnesses who had sworn that in their dealings with the plaintiff they had found Boddie an honest juan. When the Court adjourned at 1 p.nL Mr Evans-Scott had not concluded his address. The bearing is to be resumed on Monday afternoon.