LIBEL ACTION

Press, Volume LXXIX, Issue 23947, 14 May 1943, Page 6

LIBEL ACTION

PLAINTIFF GIVES EVIDENCE (P A.) WELLINGTON, May 13. Evidence was given to-day by Myra Cohen, a single woman, in support of her claim against T. C. A. Hislop, Mayor of Wellington, and chairman of the Wellington Patriotic Committee, for £5Ol damages for alleged libel. The case was lieard in the Supreme Court. Giving evidence, plaintiff said that her remuneration was 17s 6d a week, the same as she had received as a clerk when employed by the Patriotic Committee. She also had a bed-sitting room on the premises. Her duties were to attend to all the catering, engage all the staff, supervise the running of the club, take the cash, keep the books, provide cafeteria meals at 3d, 6d, and 9d, and arrange contracts accordingly. When she resigned the attendance was between 70 and 80. She described at length the work of Hislop’s wife at the club and said that this led to her resignation. Plaintiff said she did not know she was writing a letter which could be taken as a letter of resignation. When she wrote to Ward on the Friday she was sending in a report which Ward had requested. She considered that the letter was a report on troubles which had occurred, and that was all it meant. She did not intend to resign. She did not know what was done from Tuesday to Friday, as she had absented herself from her duties because Mrs Hislop had taken control. Witness admitted that she showed sustained hostility to Mr and Mrs Hislop through the week. Mr Watson: Did you listen to any telephone conversations between Mrs Hislop and Mrs Griffiths by means of the extension in your room? —Yes. I felt it perfectly honourable for my own protection. It had been placed in my room for my exclusive use in matters relating to the running of the dub. Witness said she listened to most of the conversations. She did not listen to the whole of all the conversations, and did it openly, but had never spoken. She-was not satisfied with the terms of the letters from the defendant’s solicitors to hers, and would not have been satisfied with the publication of them. It would only have clouded the issue. She would only have been satisfied with an unqualified public apology. She was not concerned with damages. Her object was to clear her name. Replying to Mr Leicester, plaintiff said the claim had only been fixed at £5Ol so her case could be heard by a jury of 12. She would at that stage be perfectly satisfied with an unqualified public apology and payment of her expenses.