TRAM FARE DISPUTE.

Auckland Star, Volume LIII, Issue 247, 18 October 1922, Page 8

TRAM FARE DISPUTE.

CAUSES SUIT FOR LIBEL. COXDI'CTOR VINDICATED. A rather unusual case came before Mr. J. E. Wilson yesterday afternoon at the Magistrate's ( oitrL John Burgess, tram conductor (Mr. J. .1. Sullivan), brought an action for alleged libel against Richard (Sough (Mr. Broun). T.ie allegation of plaintiff iv the statement of claim was that in a letter to the head office of tlie Auckland Tramways, written by defendant as a complaint as a result uf an alleged conversation between hi> mother and the plaintiff, he usc-1 the following words. "'I am sure he (meaning the plaintiff) could not have been sober to utter such words.*' It was contended that plaintiff had been injured in his credit and reputation, and the sum of £50 was claimed as damages. In opening , the case. Mr. Sullivan said he did not ask for heavy damages as the action was. taken for the purpose of vindicating his client's character. Evidence was given by tbe inspector that he had never seen ,ne v.lain if under the influence of drink.

Plaintiff gave evidence that he went through the car twice between Newmarket and Owens Road as he knew a fare was missing. When the inspector called him to give Mrs. Gough a ticket she said" she must have been looking out of the window. Witnese replied: "Yes, like some others do—to avoid paying your fare. It is people like you who get us into trouble."' He did not use to Mrs. Gouffh the words alleged in the letter.

Defendant stated that he went to the barn to find out who was the conductor of the car his mother travelled by. and not he ing able- to do so, wrote to the trnflie lrmnauer.

Mr. Broun raised the point that the letter of complaint was privileged in law.

Mr. Sullivan said he agreed with Mr. Broun that a letter of complaint was privileged, but in this case the claim for damages was based upon the comment inserted by the defendant.

Mr. Wilson said the plaintiff had certainly acr-used Mrs. Cough of trying to defraud the Tramways, which was not )hi( sort of thinj; a conductor .should do. His duty was to report'the matter to the department, and not accuse her before the public. Had the defendant merely conveyed to the department the words r-.mpbnnrd of liv his mother, iwould have been privileged. He added something to his mother's complaint acainst her wish and in her name. On plaintiff's own admission there was ground for complaint in the words he had used to Mrs. Qoilirh. His Worship said there was no justification whatever for th<> inv-iitnliijn ■ -'t liui--e.-- was tinder the influence of drink. Judgment was given for the plaintiff for £:> with costs.