SLANDER ACTION.

Auckland Star, Volume LVIII, Issue 276, 22 November 1927, Page 9

SLANDER ACTION.

ROAD BOARD OFFICIALS AT

LAW.

PANMURE MEETING SEQUEL.

A QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.

The case in which Samuel Trevor Dibble, surveyor and engineer to the Mount Wellington Road Board, sues Wesley Richards, its former quarry foreman, for £500 damages for alleged slander, was continued at the Supreme Court to-day before Mr. Justice Reed and a special jury.

Plaintiff alleges that on July 19 de-' fendant falsely and maliciously wrote and published defamatory statements in a letter to the chairman and members of the board, and that other similar statements were made against him by defendant at a public meeting at Panmure in August. Mr. J. F. W. Dickson appears for plaintiff, and Mr. E. J. Prendergast and Mr. J. J. Sullivan for defendant.

In the later stages of yesterday's hearing Mr. Prendergast submitted that the occasion on which the letter was published to the members of the board was a privileged one, and that the Panmure meeting was also a privileged occasion. He was granted leave to move for a nonsuit on this ground later in the proceedings.

In an address to the jury counsel said it was admitted by plaintiff that he had had twelve cases of benzine ordered in the name of the board and delivered to his private tractors. The only explanation was that an employee of plaintiff had ordered in this way as a matter of urgency. The manner in which the chairman of the board received gifts of benzine showed that the business of the board was conducted in a lax manner, and that things were done which were quite improper.

Details of cartages of benzine were given by Thomas Buckley, lorry driver, who said on January 31, last, he conveyed 12 cases from the British Imperial Oil Co. to Tamaki West. The benzine was obtained in the name of the Mount Wellington Road Board.

Alexander Page, public accountant, stated to-day that he had gone over the book in regard to cases of benzine. Up to June, 1926, ihe books had been properly kept, but from then onwards it was used as a memo. In 1926 it showed that Dibble debited himself for £9 15/ for benzine. Tne evidence of the book was that this particular item had not been submitted to the Government auditor.

Thomas L. May, retired schoolmaster, said up till June 13, last, he had been for seven years clerk to the board. A resolution was passed that Bray and Co. and also Dibble, should receive scoria at £1 a load on their job on the Great South Road. ' He thought afterwards that the charge was far too small and did not enter the resolution in the minutes. It was rescinded at the next meeting. Witness recalled one meeting at which he read out a list of tools and equipment. Upon him remarking that there were no crowbars Mr. Dibble jumped up and said, "Do you charge me with stealing?" Two days later Mr. Mervyn Dibble (a cousin of plaintiff), asked for the key of the shed in order to return somfe tools. Three members of the board inquired about missing canvas covers. When the matter was mentioned to plaintiff he replied that Mervyn Dibble was responsible and that it would not happen again. Witness did not keep any of the accounts, as plaintiff had told him he would be able to save £200 or £300 in discount if he handled \'iem himself. Why -ie Resigned.

Witness added that he considered the Mount Wellington ratepayers had suffered great harm through Mr. Dibble's interference. Witness' impression of what happened at the Panmure niceting was that Mr. Richards did not accuse plaintiff of misappropriation of funds, but of property such as kerbs and scoria. The board asked him to open the office six days in the week and he declined. That was why he resigned. For five years it had been a pleasure to be associated with the board, but when plaintiff came on the scene there was a cloud of trickery over everything.

Thos. Challoner, retired farmer, said he understood defenrt or >t to charge plaintiff at the Panmure meeting with misappropriation of property, not of funds.

Wesley Everitt Richards, the defendant, said witer he wrote the letter to the board he was requested to attend a meeting in committee, but as he knew plaintiff would he there he thought it would be injudicious to attend, and therefore declined on the ground of inexpediency. The board considered this to be insubordination and they terminated his engagement. The case is proceeding.