SLANDER ALLEGED

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 56, Issue 124, 7 March 1936, Page 3

SLANDER ALLEGED

CLERGYMAN CLAIMS £SOOO.

COMPANY DIRECTOR SUED. (Per Press Association.) AUCKLAND, March 6. An adjournment in ail action for £SOOO damages for alleged slander, brought by Colin Graham Scrimegour, a minister of religion, against James Marsden Caugliey, a company director, was granted by Mr Justice Fair in tbe Supreme Court. A motion for postponement of the date of the trial was put forward by Mr St. Clair Brown, for defendant, and was opposed by Mr Schramm, who appeared for plaintiff. The statement of claim set out that at Helensville on February 7, 1936, the defendant had said, falsely and maliciously: “The Rev. Mr Scrimgeoiir is a crook and could not account for the moneys entrusted to him at the Airedale Street Mission. I used to give him £2OO a year, but when I found out what he was doing with the money I had my name removed from the list. I can prove to you that he is one of the biggest rogues living. He is a fraud and a money-grabber.” Plaintiff claimed £SOOO damages, the cost of the action, and such other relief as might be just. Statement of Defence. The statement of defence was a denial of any false or malicious statement about plaintiff. It was further stated that defendant had sent the following letter to plaintiff before issue of the writ” : “I was surprised at receiving a letter from your solicitor demanding a public apology or, failing that, threatening action for slander for remaiks alleged to have been made by me concerning your honesty. Seeing that we have known one another for some time, that you have been in my house, have been my guest at the Pacific Club, and that no unfriendly word has ever passed between us, I am surprised that you should have given credence to such a statement. Before the receipt of Mr Schramm’s letter I had already refuted such an allegation. On no occasion have a questioned your integrity or honesty of purpose,'nor would any such criticism be justilied. I can only assure you that your informant has completely misunderstood me. It you so desire it, you may give any publicity you wish to this letter. In moving for a postponement o the date of trial, Mr Brown said the allegation of slander was complete y denied. An affidavit by defendant set out that on February 17 he received a letter threatening the issue of a writ. Defendant replied on February 21, informing plaintiff that lie was leaving for England on business on March 12. The writ was served on defendant on March 5. Postponement Requested. Mr Brown asked that the hearing should be postponed until the October session, because the defendant and his son had to visit Britain for important business reasons. , “The plaintiff in this action is making an allegation supported by the person, and one person alone.” Mr Brown said: “It is absolutely denied by the defendant, who is a man oi unblemished reputation. No harm can result to the plaintiff if the action is allowed to stand down until the defendant’s return from England.” \ Mr Schramm said the plaintiff opposed the postponement, as the wanted the matter disposed oi at the earliest opportunity. It was accepted that a reservation to England was made before the issue of the writ. Hie suggested that if his Honor saw fit to grant an adjournment, it should be to the July sittings of the Court. It would be the middle ,of August before the case could be called, and that would save three months. His Honor: Is it to be a jury case ?

Mr Schramm: Yes, if your Honor pleases. Subsequently Mr Brown . conferred with liis client and said that the defendant would be content with an adjournment to the July session. An adjournment was accordingly made, his Honor directing that tbe case should not be heard earlier than August 13.