Decision Reserved In £55,000 Claim

Press, Volume CV, Issue 31027, 5 April 1966, Page 3

Decision Reserved In £55,000 Claim

<yZ Press Association) AUCKLAND, April 4. Mr Justice Gresson today reserved judgment in a claim by eleven plaintiffs for £55,000 damages against an Auckland solicitor for alleged libel. The plaintiffs are- Walter Septimus Stredwick, Richard Claude Evans Kendall. Esme Maud Stanton, David Leslie Leach, David Peter Gordon Engineer. John Charles Christie, Joseph John Hinton. David Bradwell Marshall, James Bramwell Hudson, Donald George Wallbank, and Philip Lewis. The defendant is Jack Stuart Wiseman, who conducted his own defence. In his closing address, Wiseman said his letters contained matters of opinion and

were fair comment on sub- ] jects of public interest. Each communication had been made on an occasion of qualified privilege without malice. The closing of a road was the start of the present troubles. Before that relations between him and his wife and the council had been good, said Wiseman. Other troubles had since arisen with “other illegal actions by the council” and false statements which had been referred to during the hearing. False statements had been made in evidence, Wiseman said. Those by Hinton and Wallbank were not serious, but Stredwick's was. He would not ask at present that a charge of perjury be brought. There had been no publication of the road case in newspapers and none of the plaintiffs had suffered loss. He asked for judgment against the plaintiffs and costs. Earlier Wiseman made submissions for the claim by one plaintiff, Leach, to be struck out as Leach had not appeared in support of the claim. As a surveyor and town-plan-

ning lecturer. Leach would have been a very material witness. Mr S. C. Ennor, for the plaintiffs, said Leach was overseas. He considered that on the pleas and on the evidence Leach was entitled to judgment in his favour. Leach had nothing to answer. His Honour reserved decision on this point. In his final submissions Mr Ennor spoke of aggravation of damages. In this case, he said, it was submitted there had been aggravation both in relation to communications of the de-

fendant after proceedings were issued, repetition of defamatory statements complained of, and in the conduct of the case itself. Mr Ennor said that in Wiseman’s final address he had seen fit to repeat not only allegations complained of, but to widen them. “I ask for the award of damages in such a sum that in the eyes of the public it will not lose its character as substantial damages,” he said. The plaintiffs sought to vindicate their names and nominal damages would not do that.