ALLEGED LIBEL

Press, Volume LXXIX, Issue 23948, 15 May 1943, Page 6

ALLEGED LIBEL

RULING OF QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE (P.A.) WELLINGTON, May 14. An indication that he was prepared to rule that the occasion was one of qualified privilege was given by the Chief Justice (the Rt. Hon. Sir Michael Myers) in the libel action by Myra Cohen against T. C. A. Hislop. Mayor of Wellington, and chairman of the Wellington Patriotic Committee. The action was founded on a letter allegedly dictated by Hislop to an employee of the committee on February *5, and allegedly falsely and maliciously published to the honorary secretary and the honorary treasurer. The letter, which was over the secretary's signature and addressed to the plaintiff, then supervisor of the Combined Women’s Services’ Club, referred to the acceptance of her resignation. Mr Watson, for the defence, said that the case had been presented with much bitterness and hostility towards the Hislops, but there was a complete answer to the attacks. The real question was whether the letter containing the words “gross misconduct” was libellous, and, if so, whether it ; was actionable. Mr Watson said that Hislop would deny absolutely that he had used the insulting and extravagant language which the plaintiff had alleged. She had said that she would be satisfied with an absolute withdrawal of all reflections on the way she had carried out her duties, but it was an impossible position for Hislop to get up in Court to make such a withdrawal after all the attacks and innuendoes against him and his wife in the last two days. His Honour indicated that he was prepared to rule that the occasion was one of qualified privilege as being a communication between the chairman and the secretary of the committee, and that that privilege could be destroyed only if it were shown that there had been malice. He further ruled that the matter was one of public interest and that the defence of fair comment would lie, unless it were also shown that there had been malice. Mr Watson asked the jury to accept the view of the defence that the plaintiff’s persistent listening-in on telephone conversations, her absolute and stubborn refusal to co-operate in the provision of an improved midday meal, her frequent absence from duty, and her use of the words ‘‘disgusting waste of patriotic funds, 1 ' all came under the heading of gross misconduct. In outlining the evidence for the defence, Mr Watson said that on the Saturday morning Hislop went to the club believing it essential in the interests of the club that Miss Cohen should be removed from the premises as soon as possible. Evidence for Defence. * Ailsa Craig Dalhousie Hislop, wife of the defendant, said that the meeting of the hostel committee was held to discuss what could be done to Improve attendances of servicewomen. It was decided that the witness should interview heads of the women's services to find out what could be done to make the club more useful to the girls. The committee left it in her hands to carry out whatever was necessary. Witness came to the conclusion that an improved meal was desirable. Up to Tuesday, February 2, witness had no complaint to find with Miss Cohen’s conduct of the club. It was tile idea of Mrs V. Jowett (W.A.A.C. commandant) that she should visit tiio club that day and see how the new lunch went. Cutlery had been sent down tlie previous afternoon and late the same afternoon witness told Cohen that it was proposed to put on a new lunch ihe next day. She also told Cohen that all provisions would be down by 9.30 a.m. Cohen said that it could not be done, as cooking was not allowed on the premises, according to the caretaker. On being told that only potatoes were required to be cooked. Cohen said that no steam could be allowed. Some days later, Mr Hislop found from the lease that cooking was not prohibited. On Tuesday morning Cohen refused to have any part in putting on the new menu, saying that she had no helpers and would not do the work herself. There were only potatoes to cook and two pots were already on the premises. Witness and others did all the work of preparing, serving, and clearing away the lunen. Cohen had lumbago and sat at the cash ; desk. Cohen made no comment on being told that a similar lunch would be served ' in future. On the following two days w’it- ] ness and others prepared and served Umch, Cohen being absent. On Thursday evening, when witness told ’ Cohen she wished to speak to her. Cohen I went to the desk, got money and keys, : threw them along the desk to witness, I and went to her room. | Mrs Macfarlanb, said witness, was put ; In charcc of the club on Saturday as supervisor. j Cross-examined, witness said that Mrs . Gledhill had resigned as a member cf t the hostel committee as a result of trouble . over the plaintiff. j Margaret Ethel Mitchell said that sue [ was in charge of the club one or two days t of the week when the trouble occurred. | Soon after she had arrived on the Thurs- . clay, witness asked the plaintiff about the . (rouble and if she would not try and co- ( operate. The plaintiffs reply was: "Yes, . if Mrs Hislop will keep out of the club.” j Concerning happenings on the morning of i Saturday, when the defendant visited (he 1 club, witness said she heard the defendant knock loudly on the plaintiff’s door r and could hear conversation clearly. She ; did not hear him say into the telephone ■ “Get off that blank ’phone.” She only ; heard "Get off that ’nhone.” She heard t the defendant say nothing rude or abusive, i