SLANDER ACTION

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2852, 17 August 1916, Page 6

SLANDER ACTION

NO DAMAGES

PATRIOTIC SOCIETY AFFAIRS

THE SECRETARY'S CASE

In the Supreme Court yesterday, Joseph Lewis, secretary of the 'Wellington Patriotic Society, claimed £501 from Stanley H. Horner, Wellington manager for diaries Begg and Co. for alleged slandor contained in the words: ''There is some dirty work being carried 011 by the committee of the Patriotic Society, and your name is not too clean in it." The case lasted all day, and ended in the jury returninc a verdict in favour of Horner. The statement of claim set out that tho plaintiff was secretary of the Wellington Patriotic Society, which was formed on October 2!). 1914. and since then had £90,000. On June 29 Lewis and Horner met oil Lambton Qunv, and Horner falsely and _ maliciously published to George Hopkins and others unknown the following words (regarding Lewis): "There is some dirty work being carried on by the committee of tho Patriotic Society, and your name is not too clean in it." The words were intended by Horner, and understood bv. Honk-ins, to mean that the executive, of tho socictv and tho plaintiff had l<"on auiltv of a breach of trust in making an improper use of tlie funds raised by them, and the plaintiff was miilty of fraudulent and dishonest conduct in tho discharge of his office, and not fit to bo trusted or cmploved <•« honorar" secretory to the. societv. The plaintiff had in ronseouence been disnaraged in Tils office, and much injured in his credit and reputation, a"d in his business as a. contractor. Therefore, Lewis '■laimod igSOl dWaees. together with +-lip costs of the notion, and such other relief as the Court might deem fitting. How the Trouble Arose. In his statement, of defence. Horner den'"d that lie srmke or published tl>e words attributed to hini. It. was objected. too. that the words werp not wit,limit. "'-oV of special damage. and no special damage was allefed. Mr. Justice Fdwards presided at the trial, and tl.o fnllo" , 'Hf was tb" jnrv-—■ Frederick Stacey Fro'lorjpk ■Tnvifsp Alfred PiVpr. "Paul Eva" OluirrV .William Tvrill. floor*™ TTpury Thornton. FrorWiolc Hentt.ie. .Tamo*; Mfrod "TCiohnrdson, •Tames Alo-vptT-lor HariiiaV K,r n osf, TCowTnpn. ArTmrkle Coventry, and Wil'iam Humes. Mr, ,T. .T APrtratl, iiinear«d for Lewis, p'k! A. Blair aiid E. C. T,oi-roy rlpfnlldor] Hor n or. Tn m opopintr .outline of. the case. T*r r . IVfOrotli nhsnri'od to Ihe inr*- that T,o"-i" 'I"' 1 PVtrno r li.nfl piet nt CJpor'ro and Kerslor's corner on n husv oftornnin. :iivl had thorp *lio ~-orrls of T.p,v! q l,p f l rallo.l up an emplovrn of 1 In's. who was for ™-iv. mid Horner W. re"i»'t~ 1 tlio ivo"ds in-liis'nriseme. rr '" 1 *"liolo tlv-irr 1.n,l prison nnf, of- :> flrtr.ipion r c tl'o Sopipt l ' to 0V rr Jnnn'q Hand for use at pnliJan* r',„,.:,i—l:„„ i,.,i tl.*„ W., to the question of .liuvinn th" hand a set nf n-w' -•"1 tl.:~ r -- i W1 "of in'o tlm '.Tornor l,nd thereupon written to the secretary in the hope of doing business in the way of supplying instruments. There had been much correspondence in the P»>ss at the time on the assumption that tho Patriotic Socictv's funds .were to lin n.sed for th" nurnoso nf buving Ivnd instruments, whereas the fact was that the in.strupionts "-ore onlv to hourfit by the society if money could be raised for that, sneeifie purpose. It was after the society had decided to so endeavour to buy tho instruments that the affair between Lewis and Horner had occurred. Lowis had consulted his solicitors, and they had asked .Horner for a public apology, hut this had not boon agreed to. Hence the action. Ore of Lewis's letters had asked the following of Horner: ; 1. Withdrawal of the hvords alleged. _ ' 2. An undertaking not to repeat them. . 3. An admission that they were not true. 4. A public apology. 5. Payment of £50 to Lewis (to go to- a patriotic fund) and costs. The Meeting of Lewis and Horner. In tho course of his evidence tho plaintiff (Lewis) said that the money raised by the Patriotic Society was not administered by that body, but by the War Relief Association. Some time ago the Patriotic Society had considered the question of purchasing a set of band instruuients, and so far had come to an arrangement with the BristolPiano Company to buy a set from them provided tho society could raise the money for that specific purpose. When Horner had met him on Lambton Quay, the following conversation had ensued:

Horner: What about those band instruments, Mr. Lewis?

Lewis: I tliink that matter is settled for the present at any rate.

Horner: Oh, yes; there is some dirty work going on in, that Patriotic Society committee, and your name is not too clean.

Lewis: If you are not satisfied -with the working of tho committee, the committee will bo ouito pleased to Teceivo a deputation from you to 6eo tho minute book, to see exactly what transpired. Horner was heated, and wliem challenged repeated the statement in tho prcscnce of Geo. Hopkins, an employee of plaintiff. When Hopkins recited the words (at Horner's request), Horner said: "Yes, you've got it, and that is public opinion." James Macintosh, formerly treasurer to tlie Patriotic Society, deposed that Lewis liad acted as secretary in a thoroughly honest and straightforward manner. As to the words alleged to havo 'been used by Horner, ho took from them the meaning tliat Lewis had been bribed regarding the purchase of tho instruments. Mr. Blair: Do you suggest it lias done ono farthing's worth of damage? Witness: Yes. Mr. Blair: Who to? Witness: The members of the society. His Honour: What damage? It was only hoard by Hopkins. Mr. M'Grath: I would point out the statement w : as made in ■ a crowded street. His Honour: Yes, but you only propose to prove publication to Hopkins, and lie was not likely to repeat it. Ho was a workman of the plaintiff; Mr. M'Grath: We are not claiming actionable damages. His Honour: But the jury is entitled to take a rcasiniable view of the ease, and a reasonable view as to damages. They might think a farthing reasonable. A Man at the Keyhole? Mr. Blair: You say there was some talk going on at the time about tho society. Witness: Yes. i\lr. Jili'ir: And you propose to make Mr. [Inr-.T 'my for the whole of tho publin "Witness'did not answer definitely. Sir. JJhii:•: You proposed to mako an example «!' him? Witness: Yes. Mr. Blair: This was I ho first case you got hold of? Witness: Yes, and we were determined to step it. Witness said also that it was pos-

siblc that othor cases mic.lif. bo brought by oilier members of tbo Patriotic Society arising out of tho same alleged set of circumstnnccs.

Hero Mr. Blair said that 0110 of the witnesses for tlio plaintiff lad been listening at a keyhole to the proceedings, notwithstanding that all witnesses bad been ordered to leavo tho court, and remain beyond hearing. Mr. M'Gratli said that if that was tlio case lie would refrain from calling tho man.

His Honour said that if the witness had done this, lie could be severely reprimanded. However, when the. witness was called the matter was not mentioned.

Edwin John Colley, accountant, present treasurer of tho society, said that Lewis was an intensely patriotic man, and it ■ would be lying for anyone to say that he had done any dirty work in connection with the society.

George John Hopkins, cleaner, stated that when Lewis oallcd him into Horner's presence. Horner used the words complainod of in tho statement of claim.

This closed the evidence for the plaintiff.

Defendant Denies the Allegations,

Tho evidence of .the defendant Eor-' nor was that ho had not used tho words alleged against him. He had asked Lewis, on tile occasion referred to, if the band instruments had yet •been bought, and on Lewis saying that they had been ho complained to Lewis about "unbusinesslike motliods" in not buying the instruments by tender, and said that such methods would not increase Lewis's business reputation. As to tho negotiations for an apology, ho had not publicly apologised because tie had objected to publicly apologising for a remark he had not made. '

Mr. M'Gratli: Are you defending this action bona fide, or is your firm paying the costs?

Witness: Tho firm is paying. Tho evidence closed, Mr. Blair addressed the jury. He said the matter was trivial in tlio extreme, and that oven if the words alleged were used by Horuer they wore published to Hopkins at tlio request of Lewis, and as they had not affected _ Hopkins's goocf opinion of Lewis, Lewis had not been dfiiafted in the least. Tho real plaintiff was not Lewis, but various members of the Patriotic Society, who felt, aggrieved at certain things which had been rumoured about.

Mr". M'Grath said (to the jury) that no man could afford to have a slur cast on his reputation, and that Lowis wa« entitled to damages. The jury were given the following issues to Seal with, and after a brief retirement they returned the answers appended:— 1. Were, the words charged uttered by tho defendant of tho plaintiff?— Answer: No. 1

2. If so. do they impute dishonesty or misconduct on the part of tho plaintiff in their natural meaning?— Answer: No.

3. Do they bear the meaning put upon them by the statement of claim? -"No."

4. If the words were uttered by the defendant, were, they uttered with the express intention to injure tho plaintiff?—" No." <:

5. .What damages, if any, is tlio plaintiff entitled to reenvor?—"Xono."

Judgment was entered accordingly. His Honour remarked that the result cast no imputation upon tlie plaintiff or the Patriotic. Society.

Mr. Blair screed with tho observation : they had tho greatest admiration for tho work done- by the society and its members. ■