DAMAGES AWARD

Auckland Star, Volume LXX, Issue 110, 12 May 1939, Page 8

DAMAGES AWARD

SLANDER ACTION.

H MALICIOUS MOTIVE." i UNION SECRETARY TO PAY. i _____ OCCASION NOT PRIVILEGED. \ (H.v Trl.-criipl) Own Corrnspriiidpnt.) HAMILTON, this (Ihv. A ruling tliiil n. licensing authority <\n** lit»t ha\e the ttiitiH of n (Hurt of law. mid therefore \* not. «ill>ject to nlwohilc privilege under the law of libel mill slander, because it. is nil adminihlmlive (rihuuul only, win jriven by Mr. S. \ t . I'litorson, S.M., in a resewed judgment t«>-<liiv. It, in underMood Unit this U the fli-Hl tin,,' the «|ile«liun hitm been determined in New Xcnliintl. Tlie cti«(! wim lifiird in Hamilton on December lj, when Kichard (Inudt KendnJl. mrtiiip' i ontriictor, of Tin mil - ton, cmiined i:i<Ml ih mage* fnini Lawrence (iermd MiithnwH, secretary of the Auckland Drivern' Union. Mr. \V. ,1. Kinff, Inxtruetod by Mr. A. (J. Ward, uppeim-d for pltiin't iff, ami Mr. V. H. Haißh, of Auckland, for the defendant. Phiintiff nilpjrcd that during a sitting of tho niithority. defendant said, inter alia, that, Kendall was "not n lit pernon t« havo a lirenxc because of the way he treats hi» men."

"Having regard to the evidence mid all the circumstance*, I am satisfied the defendant, was acting from »n improper and malicious motive and wa* abunlng tho occasion," remarked Afr. I'atcnaon, who added it was clear the words were • poken in relation to plaintiff's business and wer« actionable without proof of •peeial damage. \<{ special damage, wiih alleged or proved, but. plaintiff was entitled to presumptive damage. Before tho action defendant was requested to nwiko a reasonable apology. Although he was given particulars of the statement* ullegcd, tho request was ignored. £30 Damages And Costa. The magistrate mwensed damages at £30, and gave judgment for that amount with coats, solicitors' fee* and witnesses' expenecH. Mr. I'aterson said that on October 13 last plaintiff, who wan a cartage, contractor carrying on biwliipmt in the Hamilton and Hinuera districts, nppeered before, the No. 1 Licensing Authority. Mr. K. .1. Plu-lan. in Hamilton, in support of an appllcntion for an amendment fo hit* carrying license, plaintiff alleged that during The Hitting tht defendant. «aid: "The operator haw medo iwrioun hreachw nf the award and h# is not complying with the conditions of his IicQIMC. He liH* mitde capital out of the fact that lio ««aid tliat the Driver*' Union can go to . Kendall Iμ not a flt permtn to have a license because of the way ho treatx his men. Wβ have had a lot of difficulty in the past in rennet of this particular operator. Wβ have proof that his employees have handed back, under coercion, their back pay."

Defendant denied having «aid Kendall was unlit 'o hold a licence, but admitted having «*id back pay had been handed back under coercion. TTw magistrate Mid it was not easy to get a clear, connected account of what happened owing to the fact that defendant * words caused a stir and Suite a hubbub. However, he wm «atiaed the word* as charged were used. ifoMVit Motion Dismissed. The magistrate dismissed a defence motion for a nonmilt. Dealing with the point of qualified privilege. Mr. Paten.oll said he could •ee no reiwnn for extending the defence of qualified privilege. It appeared to him, however, tote immaterial whether the occasion was ho privileged, because he wan satisfied on the evidence that defendant iad been actuated by malice. Tho obvious inference from those remarks, urated Mr. J'ateison, was that the authority thought Ma thews wa« ■bueing the occasion. At the Court hearing in December Ma thews tried to justify slander, but lim evidence fell »r abort of just ideation.

"I am of tlm opinion that defendant •cted recklessly, not caring whether his statements worn true or false. Malice was further evidenced by the defendant , * conduct." added Mr. Pateiwon, who »aid that if Muthowrt had genuine complaint he coul,| have made it formally to authority under the appropriate section or the Act. Instead, he had waited for » public meeting, and hie attitude wae hostile and vindictive. Malice was to be strongly inferred from the violent •nd intemperate word* used.