CLAIM FOR £2500.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIV, Issue 137, 13 June 1933, Page 8

CLAIM FOR £2500.

SLANDER ALLEGED. BUSINESS OF A SYNDICATE. CHEMICAL rOSMULA RIGHTS, (By Telegraph.—l'ress Association.) WELLINGTON, this day. A claim for £2300 damages was commenced in tlie Supreme Court yesterdav and continued to-day before Mr. Justicc Ostler. Eeginald Charles Boddie, sales organiser, of Wellington, alleged slander against James Dickson Sievwriglit, retired, also of Wellington. Plaintiff complained of statements alleged to have been made falsely and maliciously by defendant to one 11. J. Lockyer affecting plaintiff's credit and reputation in connection with the business of a syndicate for the manufacture of a chemical preparation, in which the parties were associated. Mr. O'Leary, for the defence, said it wouM be submitted that the statements were made 011 occasions of qualified privilege without malice. Plaintiff had advertised for someone with £50 to communicate with him. A Mrs. Miller let Boddie have £50 on the security of a formula. Later plaintiff came to Sievwright and obtained £10, again pledging the formula. After this plaintiff apparently sold another share to W. T. Ncale. He gradually revealed to these three that each had paid for the same thing. A syndicate was then formed. Tlie business proved unsatisfactory. Counsel then described how a formula was prepared at Christehureli and sold to a company. The wale of the formula was a complete sale of all rights connected with it, and was not restricted to the South Island. The chairman of ■the company would give evidence to that effedt. Arthur JNlcKellav, public accountant, of Christehureli, gave details of the purchase of the formula by the Christchurch company, which took the sole rights. The company still existed, and was not in financial difficulties. Witness Said that plaintiff had no right to negotiate for the fiale of the preparation. This morning Mr. O'Leary, for the defendant, said the formula had been prepared by Mr. Kiddle, analytical chemist, and he and plaintiff had sold it to the company, which was registered as the Nados Company. The sale of the formula was a complete sale of all rights connected with it. It belonged wholly to the Nados Comprvny, and Boddie was getting money 011 it In Wellington he was acting fraudulently. Counsel submitted that when a general ehargo of dishonesty was made, and not a specific charge 011 a certain date, it was sufficient for a plea of justification to prove that plaintiff had acted as was alleged, even although defendant did not have knowledge of these facts at the time he inade his allegations. Evidence is being heard.