SLANDER ACTION.

Auckland Star, Volume LVIII, Issue 275, 21 November 1927, Page 9

SLANDER ACTION.

£500 DAMAGES CLAIMED.

BIT. WELLINGTON ROAD BOARD EMPLOYEES AT LAW.

SURVEYOR'S SUIT AGAINST

FOREMAN.

A spccial jury was empanelled at the Supreme Court to-day to hear an action for alleged slander brought by Samuel Trevor Dibble, surveyor and consulting engineer to the Mount Wellington Road Board, against Wesley Richards, foreman of the board's scoria pit. Fraintitl claimed £500 damages—£2so for publishing an alleged false and malicious libel, and a similar sum for alleged defamation of character in a speech delivered at a public meeting. Mr. Justice Reed presided. Plaintiff was represented by Mr. J. F. W. Dickson, and defendant by Mr. E. J. Prendergast and Mr. J. J. Sullivan.

Mr. Dickson said his client was employed by the Mount Wellington Road Board in connection with the construction of concrete roads in the district at a total cost of £72,000. A certain amount of antagonism was aroused on account of the fact that Mr. Dibble used his own methods, and did not employ Sub-contractors. As a matter otf fact, the work was done by the employees of the road board, and it gave every satisfaction. The road construction compared favourably with any similar job in New Zealand, and the method? had been adopted as more or less of a standard for this kind of contract. The trouble seemed to have arisen as the result pf a visit which Dibble paid tr. the scoria pit some time before the work was completed and made certain remarks as to the way in which the operations should be conducted.

A considerable amount of feeling was engendered, and on July 19 Richards wrote to the road board as follows:

"Will you permit me tw make a statement relating to my position as fore- J man of the board's scoria pit! On the flth inst. Mr. Dibble, who, I understand, is consulting engineer to the hoard, came into the pit and made certain remark? in regard to the way in which the pit should be worked. Never at any time have I been instructed bv the hoard, and T certainly will not take orders from Mr. Dibb'e, on the ground of him not being a fit and proper person to give orders to anyone in the Mount Wellington district. If a waterside worker had done the things Mr. Dibble had done in this district he would be servine a long term of imprisonment. Being placed in a position of trust and responsibility as he was in regard to laying the roads he deliberately misused that position for his own self aggrandisement. The hoard's goo-rla were misanpropriated by him. In other cases without authority he sold the board's material, and what

has become of the money? In partner-1 ship with others, he bargained for thr mirchase" ef material from the board. Has the money been paid ower? If so : when and in what way!" "A Vitriolic Speech." A public meeting of ratepayers was held at Panmure on August 13, and Mr. Richards delivered a vitriolic speech. Counsel quoted extracts in which defendant said plaintiff had deliberately misappropriated the beard's funds and had abused the trust imposed in him Defendant also said Mr. Dibble had "dabbled in a lot of dirty ponds," that he was early a bogus engineer, and that

he had bought property in anticipation of the making of the roads. It was . .'ler this meeting that plaintiff was compelled to take action. When the writ was issusd defendant denied that he had accused Mr. Dibble of misappro priating the funds of the board. The defence now was firstly that the allegations were true, and secondly that they were justified. The defenee contained a series of allegations with regard to converting ccrtain articles to his own use. Plaintiff, giving evidence, said he was appointed consulting engineer to the Mount Wellington Road Board in November, 1024. The lowest tender for the roadwork undertaken exceeded his estimate of £16.421 by £2000, and he was granted permission to carry it out himself by day work. He did the work at £2321 below his own estimate. He was paid on the basis of 5 per cent of the loan moneys expended, and all he did was with the consent of the board. He distinctly remembered Mr. Richards using the word "misappropriation of funds" at the public meeting. Cross-examined by Mr. Prendergast, witness said he hail had about nine j months' experience as an engineer end twelve months' as a surveyor at the time he contracted for the work. He owned some property in the Panmure district, but had acquired it after the concreting had been started. He was not interested in any property prior to the carrying of the loan proposals. The only reason he had been refused registration with the Engineers' Institute was that he had not had the necessary six years' experience. He admitted that the board's lorry and the services of its employees had been used by him on one occasion when they should not have been, but said this was a mistake on the part of the young man who ordered it. It was just the mistake a young man might make. The case is proceeding.