LIBEL ALLEGED.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVIII, Issue 283, 29 November 1937, Page 8

LIBEL ALLEGED.

WOMAN CLAIMS £500.

COMPANY AS DEFENDANT.

QUESTION OF CIRCULAR.

Allegations of liliel and slander were made in the Supreme Court to-day by a woman hosiery importer who claimed £.">OO from an Auckland company and its directors. The plaintiff was Mrs. Muriel Ann Mitchell (Mr. Hunt), and the defendants Brook bank*. Limited (Mr. North) and Prank Christopher Brook banks, Thomas Cecil Batts and Bertie Williams (Mr. Munro), warehousemen and directors,of the company. The statement of claim set out that plaintiff was an importer, buyer and retailer of hosiery, gloves and other articles, and that until July 20. 1035. she was in business in Queen Street as '•Mayfair Hosiery and Glove*." She went into bankruptcy on her own petition on July 20. and at a meeting of her creditors six days Inter she had stated that for some four or five months before November. 1933. "I had to cn'-ry on . . .

with the assistance of a small bank overdraft and selling on consignment for Brookbanks, Limited."

About August 7, 1935, it was alleged, the defendants had falsely and maliciously issued a circular "let*er to the following effect: "In a recent bankruptcy proceedings of Muriel A. Mitchell, lately trading as the 'Mayfair,' Queen Street; a newspaper report was made that she had conducted business with good* on consignment from several houses, and mentioned in particular the name of Brookbanks. Limited. We wish to advise vou that this is a misleading statement, as the business we transacted was conducted on the ordinary warehouse terms, and we insisted on prompt cash monthly settlements. It is not our practice to supply goods on consignment. "We believe this statement because of reports which are being made around the city which we consider detrimental to our welfare. Yours faithfully, Brookbanks, Limited." It was claimed that the alleged words meant and were understood to mean, by firms and persons which were declared to have received the circular, that the plaintiff was a liar and a perjurer.

Verbal Statement. It was further alleged that after some time one of the principals of the defendant firm made verbally a similar statement to the Official Assignee—to the effect, namely, that the firm at no time had supplied Mrs. Mitchell with goods on consignment. Mr. Hunt said that with two minor exceptions the defendants had denied everything in the claims. The allegations admitted were that formal one concerning the existence of the company and the identity of its directors, and that which stated plaintiff had become bankrupt on her own petition. A rather unusual feature of the case, he added, was that plaintiff was under an order of bankruptcy, but that fact could not prevent her from protecting her name. Mr. Hunt said the defendants could not have thought the alleged statements were true, because they had written her a letter in July, 1933, and set out an arrangement which, he said, was nothing more nor less than an arrangement to supply her with goods on consignment. In evidence, the plaintiff said that as. she went about town she was asked by business people what she had meant by making a "wrong statement," and she had been told that a circular had been sent out. She had gone to Brookbanks about the matter. He had admitted at first that he had given her consignment stock, and said that she was unfair to have mentioned the firm in her evidence, although he had not said why she should not have mentioned it. (Proceeding.)