CLAIM FOR 1\-

Press, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 26398, 17 April 1951, Page 5

CLAIM FOR 1\-

ALLEGED DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER

PLAINTIFF NON-SUITED BY MAGISTRATE

“For the plaintiff to succeed in this action he has got to establish that the words were actionable per se in their meaning,” said Mr E. A. Lee, S.M., at a sitting of the Magistrate’s Court at Ashburton yesterday, when he nonsuited Norman Jones, aged 36, a coalminer (Mr J. E. Millar) who claimed damages of Is against Herbert John Lucas Christie (Mr L. A. Charles). Jones alleged that Christie falsely and maliciously spoke to him so that his character and reputation had been brought into contempt and ridicule and that by those words plaintiff had lost some of his daughter’s affection. Mr Millar said that the action was brought about merely as a means to overcome an intolerable situation, not for monetary gain, as the sum asked was only nominal. On January 6 the plaintiff drove his truck to the house of hi,s former father-in-law, where his daughter lived with his former wife. Under the terms of the divorce he was entitled to visit his daughter. On reaching the house, defendant had said: “ You dirty yellow swine. Where is your khaki?” TTie plaintiff ignored that, and the defendant, when Jones was returning to the truck for the last time, said: “You dirty yellow swine. Get out!” Both of these remarks had been made in the presence and hearing of at least two persons. Mr Millar said that the words used implied that Jones had improperly evaded military service. The remarks •tould have caused a breach of Die peace and the loss of affection by plaintiff’s daughter. The false and malicious utterances had injured Jones’s character and reputation, Mr Millar said. Plaintiff’s Evidence Jones said that he had tried unsuccessfully to enter the forces, but had been refused because mining was regarded as an essential industry. He md his brother had even slowed down production so as to be dismissed and hen join the forces. He said the manager of the mine had told him that his job was just as important and to work properly. Witness had first tried to enter the services about Christmas, 1939. To Mr Charles, Jones said that there was feeling between himself and his former father-in-law over the divorce. Mr Charles said that the plaintiff had ignored his son, who was on the lawn of the house, when the remarks were made. He had ignored his son ever since he was born, and Christie's remark had been brought on by the deliberate ignoring of his son’s presence. Jones said that he did not know his son, as he was a baby when the divorce was granted. Avon Charlwood Calder said he was a brother-in-law of the plaintiff. The remarks were nasty and even venomous, witness said. Jones did not reply to either. Witness’s explanation of the utterance was that Jones did not go and was afraid to go to the war.

Mr Charles moved for a non-suit on the ground that no actual harm had resulted and no attempt had been made to prove that damage had been done to Jones by the remarks.