CLAIM AGAINST SOLICITOR.

Auckland Star, Volume XLIX, Issue 206, 29 August 1918, Page 6

CLAIM AGAINST SOLICITOR.

ALLEGATION OF LIBEL. PLAINTIFF NONSUITED. An action for £100 damages for slander. or in the alternative libel, was brought against Alfred Hall Skelton, solicitor, by Mrs. llaynor \V. Skinner at the Supreme Court, before Mr. Justice Stringer, this morning. Air. Ostler appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. McVea'gh for the defendant.

It was stated that some time n#o Ihef plaintiff kept a boardinghouKr; in East Street, and later had let it furnislicd on a weekly tenancy. VVlion the tenant left the house phiintilT complained that some of the articles of furniture were niisainff, and wrote to the tenant on the subject. Aβ a result of this letter the defendant, as solicitor for the tenant, wrote a letter to Airs. Skinner containing, it was alleged, certain libellous words. In opening, Mr. Ostler addressed the Court on solicitors' privilege, and held that privilege coultl not he claimed when , ;i.n irrelevant matter wajs introduced. A solicitor's privilege, he stated, was not absolute, because it could ho. destroyed by malice. Oiving evidence, the defendant said that where he had to send letters containing unpleasant matter lie wrote and copied them himself, and in this ease it was morn than probalile that he had typewritten the letter himself. His Honor pointed out that in view of Mr. Skelton's evidence plaintiff would have difficulty in proving the publication to a third party necessary to maintain an action in Court. Mr. Ostler said that he recognised this difficulty, but claimed that he had proved enough to make it necessary for the defendant to prove non-publication. His Honor, however ,h held that publication had not been proven, and plaintiff would therefore be nonsuited.

Referring to the question of costs, Mr. Ostler contended that the letter was one that no solicitor should have written, and as the Court had power to deprive parties of costs in certain circumstances, this case waa one where this course should bo taken. Mr. McVeagh pointed out that his side had not been called upon to pive evidence, and ho stronoly opposed the suggestion made by Mr. Ostler. Flis Honor said that it was not necessary to discuss the matter. In special circumstances solicitors had to put unpleasant matter in letters, and while he could not quite see the reason for it in this case, it was probably more n matter of good taste than anything else. Thorp was no reason why he should deprive defendant of costs," even if he had power to do so. Costs were allowed on the lower scale.