ALLEGED SLANDER.

Auckland Star, Volume LI, Issue 209, 1 September 1920, Page 5

ALLEGED SLANDER.

OLD KAN SUED FOR £1,000. GRAFTON (PfOTUTCES STORY. An action for alleged slander was brought m th-e Supreme Court to-day by Herbert Robins Cooke (Dr. Bamford, instrutted by Earl, Kent, and Mas-sry), estate agent, against Frederick William' Manning, son. (Mr. J. F. W. Dickeon), retired farmer. 'Belle Vue Road, Mount : Eden, from whom he claimed £1000 damages. | The alleged slander, Dt. Bamiord> stated, was uttered by the defendant at I a meeting of fhn directors of th-e Nrw Zealand Quicksilver Mince, L,td., on April Iti, lfii-20, when it was alleged he addressed the plaintiff, w<ho was chairman/In these terms: —"Yju . re going to work another swindle like yon did with the Grafron Pictures.' where you ruined the shareholders and stole the property from them for yourself and your own I friends, and you a.re going to do the ! sn.me with the Quicksilver Company." i The defendant held 13,000 shares in the i company, hut during the war, for ec-Ttain ! reasons connected with his nationality, I thet-e shares were transferred by him to ! his son, who was a British subject. The : incident compluined of was alleged to i have taken place when the directors j were about to consider fche question of I retratieferring the shares from, the son !to the father. The defendant, althongh I present, was not entitled to attend, and was aeked to retire. CASE FOR THE DEIFEXCE. In certain letters written by Mr. Oickson on behalf of the defendant, it was stated that Mr. Manning, sen., was 78 yejirs of age, and v; a Maori war veteran -who had been wounded in action. It was denied that lie used the word? attributed to him, but if they were uttered they were mere vulgar abuse. Four months later, although the defendant, had previously ignored a request to make a public apology, his counsel had offered an apology. £50. ■ damages, and also costs. That offer was I received 'on feh-e day befoTe the case was 1 orisrinally to bo heard in Court. I The ajlefred slander was repeated fw ; ee, ' I>r. Bnmford sard, and the defendant was extremely angry and hot-headed. PLAINT I FiF? FJYrDKXCE. The plaintiff corroborated hie counsel's resume of the facts. CYoss-ex-amincd by Mr. Dickson, witness said that one of the directors, who only held 100 shares, drew attention to tSe defendant's presence at the directors' meeting, whereupon the latter was I requested to retire a* he 'had no Tight to I attend. Witness said he hold 20(10 shares. ! The defendant, who had since had his shares retraneferred to lrimself, was the largest ehareholder, and had beon the biirg-est lender to the company.* 'N'otwithKtandirs , complaints aguinet the management by some shareholders, as was usual in most companies, the retiring directons were re-elected, and witness u'ls re-appointed chairman, a vote of confidence in them being carried by a majority. "The •plaintiff admitted that tfhe de- ! fendant's last ,k>an of made 22 ! months a-po, had not been repaid. Nn- ' body had received any dividend, but the : company was a pood proposition. There , had been several reconstructions. Tin[defendant was a very peculiar man. and I was of German nationality. I To Mr. Diekson: Defendant has been | in the Colonie? fo-r SS veare, and had a, ' son killed in the Boer AVht. Dr. Bamford: We are n-ot attacking his charnctCT. THE OXLY QUESTION'S. Hifi Hmior: The only questions are. \vhether th-e wordrs were uttered, whether they are "actionnWe, and if =o what is : tho damajre* That tlvey were mere I v\ilnraT atiuso cannot be relied upon as an ] answer to the efoarge. • With reference to the Crafton Pietnre J Company, witness said the ehareh-old'erß wore naturally a bit annoyed at losing their money. H-e was tihim. and was still . chairman of directors. When that com--1 pany decided to go into liquidation he offered any shareholder fllOO to lie tclwved of hie share of responsibility. Th-ere wa-s at that time.a bank overdraft of £4750, for which the directors weT? guarantors. Another director offered £200 to oe relieved, but neithe-f offer wae accepted. The reason the company, failed was because it could not get p-c----ture-s. The theatre, was now called the Tivoli Theatre. At the time of the liquidation it looked a bad proposition. Mr. DicJkson: It is a good proposition now? Witnoes: Well, it is, but tip to tn-e present we have never had our money back !or any dividends, and the bank overdraft was Sbill owing. The theatre, he added, was now leased, and was doing better, portions of the leasehold property .having been purchased. PLArNTIIFIF'S SPX3OND ACTION". i Reverting to the Quicksilver Company, witness «aid the shareholders had no reason to be d'i«>atisfied, their interests being well protected. I Mr. Dickeon: You should be a cornpan v promoter: you are so plausiWe. Witness admitted the pre-ont action was his second slander action in connection with the Quicksilver Mines. Iftd. In the first be wae nonsuited, because his witnesses failed him. Be desired to vindicate, his character and to temeb. the defendant a lesson. He would not now accept an apology in open Court, together with his costs, when he" mad already been offered £50 damages. Mr. Tfic'kson: I see, you are looking for i money. , I rleirry C. Tewslev, accountant, also <rave evidence, and stated that he had «een the defendant, who was not in Court, in town yesterday and on i Monday. j Mr. Dickson produced a medical certi- • ficatc that the defendant wae not fit ta attend, and. be called no evidence. ■ Counsel then addressed the jury.