£55,000 DAMAGES CLAIMED

Press, Volume CV, Issue 31023, 31 March 1966, Page 1

£55,000 DAMAGES CLAIMED

Councillors Suing Lawyer (New Zealand Press Association) ' AUCKLAND, March 30. Damages totalling £55,000 for alleged libel are being sought by the Mayor of East Coast Bays, nine of his councillors and a former Mayor who are claiming against a North Shore solicitor in an action which opened before Mr Justice Gresson in the Supreme Court at Auckland today.

The plaintiffs are Walter Septimus Stredwick, the Mayor, and Richard Claus Evans Kendall, Esme Maud Stanton, David Leslie Leich, David Peter Gordon, John Charles Christie, Joseph John Hinton, David Bridwell Marshall, John Hudson. Donald George Wallbank and Philip Lewis.

The defendant is Jack Stuart Wiseman. The plaintiffs are represented by Mr S. C. Ennor and Mr C. R. Pidgeon. Wiseman is conducting his own defence.

The statement of claim gays that Stredwick is the present Mayor of East Coast Bays and Kendall was the Mayor from 1956-59. Other plaintiffs were all elected councillors. They allege that Wiseman wrote and published several letters of a defamatory nature—most of them going to the council, but some also being sent to other organisations. The statement says that the letters said they had acted dishonestly and without integrity in relation to the borough affairs, had been involved in illegal spending of ratepayers' money, had indulged in trickery, frauds and lying, had dishonoured a decision of the Town and Country Planning Appeal Board, were dishonest, corrupt and malicious, had shown favouritism to two particular ratepayers and had acted in deliberate breach of statutory obligations and a decision of the Town and Country Planning Appeal Board. As a result, each of the plaintiffs had been, or was likely to be. greatly injured in credit and reputation, disparaged in their office as Mayor and councillors, and brought into public scandal, contempt and ridicule. Injunction Sought Each claimed £5OOO and sought an injunction restraining Wiseman from making defamatory statements about them.

In a statement of defence. Wiseman admits that he wrote the letters complained about, but denies that the contents were false and malicious. He says that they were fair and bona fide comment on subjects of public interest.

In an amended statement of defence he says that the claim for £55.000 is unrealistic because of the complete lack of publication in any newspapers. He denies malice and says the plaintiffs have

not acted as people in their public position should have i acted. In a further statement i Wiseman says the communications of which each plaini tiff complained were made on ■ occasions of qualified privilege and fairly warranted by it and without malice, and that the dishonesty and malice were by the plaintiffs. Wiseman said that he w’ould move for a non-suit later. Earlier Action In opening the case, Mr Ennor said East Coast Bays borough had had three mayors in its history. Two were plaintiffs in this case. A third, a Mr Greville. had taken independent action against Wiseman. The plaintiffs had been maligned for a long period by Wiseman, Mr Ennor said. The claim derived from a number of letters to various people. Writing and publication was admitted in Wiseman’s statement of defence. Wiseman had now repeated defamatory statements in subsequent statements of defence and made allegations such as ■‘sheer malice.” He had filed an affidavit which also aggravated the position. The plaintiffs’ concern was to clear their names and bring an end to “a form of persecution." The sum claimed was large. This was because Greville, in his earlier action —not yet i settled —had claimed £5OOO. Lying Allegetl Hinton, the first plaintiff called, said he had been a member of the East Coast Bays Borough Council since October, 1954. He was on reasonably friendly terms with Wiseman. Hinton said he received two letters in October, 1963, from Wiseman. References were made about lies by witness and Greville in regard to road closing in Murrays Bay. Hinton denied telling Wiseman lies about such a matter. The council, he said, re-

ceived legal advice before making any decision on road closing. Cross-examined by Wiseman, Hinton said he had advised the defendant by letter that if the original letters were not withdrawn within 14 days he would approach the Law Society for its advice. Wiseman: You. knew that your council’s solicitors, Hesketh and Richmond, had sacked me? Hinton said he knew nothing about sacking, but he knew Wiseman had left the firm. Hinton denied his letter of reply to Wiseman was a threat. He said he could not recall any of Wiseman’s letters being published in any newspaper. There had been a number of Wiseman’s letters on the council agenda. It got to the stage where his letters were introduced by the Town Clerk and referred to the council’s solicitors. Asked what damage he had suffered as a result of Wiseman’s letters, Hinton said he had been called a liar and his employment had been affected. Wiseman: Has your capital or income suffered? Hinton: I would say not. Mayor’s Evidence Stredwick, the present Mayor of the borough, said he could not remember that the Audit Department intervened to stop certain work at Murrays Bay as Wiseman had alleged. He produced a letter he said h e received from Wiseman. The letter's first sentence read: “If playing dirty tricks on people brings bad luck then you certainly deserve the bad luck you have had this year, including your wife’s stroke.” Stredwick said his wife almost lost her speech, was partly paralysed and had a steady pain on one side of her head. He said Wiseman subpoenaed Mrs Stredwick to be present in Court today. Stredwick. referring to letters in the statement of claim, said they were like throwing mud or sticks on clean and dirty windows and should be wiped off. Wiseman: This claim of £ss.ooo—you knew it was unrealistic. Was it malicious? Stredwick: No. It was, in my view, a means of bringing the seriousness of this case to notice. 1 don’t want any cash other than out of pocket expenses. I want the clearing up of aspersions on my character. Stredwick said that no action of the council resulted in Wiseman being dismissed from his job with Hesketh and Richmond. He said he would be very surprised if anj’ member of the council had telephoned the firm and Wiseman was then dismissed. The hearing will continue tomorrow.