ALLEGED LIBEL.

Auckland Star, Volume LI, Issue 41, 17 February 1920, Page 5

ALLEGED LIBEL.

I AUCTIONEERS IN DISPUTE. SALES OF FRUIT. The hearing of*tlie libel action in which > Radley and Co., Ltd. (Mr. McVeagh), proceeded against E. Turner and Co.,' Ltd. (Mr. J. 11. Reed. K.C., with Mr.j Anderson) and claimed from them dam-, jages to the extent of £750 wae con-j 'tinned at the Supreme Court before his ( |llonor Mr. Justice Cooper today. j J Geoffrey Squire Radley was again, placed in'the witness-box in order to give; jMY. Reed an opportunity to crossI examine on the question of the balance-, jsuee, which was held over from yesterday to allow witness to produce it. | I The query was put first by Mr. Reed of I whether witness, at the meeting of fruit i auctioneers, when it wan decided to in-j crease the charges by a penny, <li<i nut! express satisfaction "with the proposal. To this witness replied that he remembered the meeting, but did not think he took any active part in it. I Mr. Heed: Ihd you not say to Harvey Turner an you were leaving, "This suits | mc down "to the gro'.md": — 1 do not! recollect that. j Will you swear it?—l will swear 1 do not recollect it. I About that balance-sheet now. you have it with yo-.i? 1 have a private ledger here from which the balance-sheet is drawn. I I Where is your balance-sheet?—We do not need a public balance-sheet, being a private company. You told us yesterday you had a bal-ance-sheet. —I would be referring to this book. Have you got the balance-sheet7 —No: I have not the balance-sheet with mc. In reply to further questkns witness said when he referred yesterday to a balance-sheet he meant a balance-sheet which might be written from the books. When asked to produce the balance-sheet Ihe was unJer the impression that counsel ] wanted only a balance-sheet for one j department." He had. however, supplied I a balance-sheet to the bank and to the Income Tax Commissioner. Mr. Reed: Do you say you have not given a balanec-heet to any other per- ! son:—Yes; 1 posted a copy to a certain person us well. Witness, under further cross-examina-tion, refused lv disclose the name of this person. Mr. Heed pressed the question of the production of the balance-sheet, and witness said he thought it possible there was another copy in the safe, ile could produce this in a few minute-. The Court adjourned for half an hour to allow witness to net this copy. When he returned he produced the balance-sheet, which lie stated covered a period of 18 months, and wa- crossexamined on this at some length by Mr. Reed. With regard to the Island trade, he said the proportion of profit as. compared with th-at on the local fruit trade would be about four to »i\, pointing out at the time that the expen-c of handling Island fruit on the wharf was considerable. This clo-ed the case for the plaintiff. Mr. Reed f"r the defence applied for n nonsuit on the grounds that the statement in the circular was incapable of I containing a defamatory meaning, and that tlw action "as privileged, and there was no evidence of expressed malice. His Honor reserved the points raided. Mr. Reed, in opening his case, traversed the evidence to be submitted, stating that there was absolutely no intention oi imputing dishonest motives to Messrs. Radlev and L'o. Hi* client had no intention of doing so then, nor did he do it n.'iw. The circular was simply sent out as a reply to the circulars sent out by plaintiff." Evidence on the-e lines was given hy Harvey Turner, director of E. Turner and Co.. Ltd.. witness deposing as to the cost of handling local fruit and to the effect that it was impossible to sell at a profit under ;> commission of 7J per cent. The case is proceeding.