SLANDER ACTION

Dominion, Volume 26, Issue 220, 13 June 1933, Page 11

SLANDER ACTION

Deals With a Formula

CLAIMS FOR £2500

Mr. J. D. Sievwright Sued \

AFFAIRS OF A SYNDICATE

Alleging that he bad been slandered, and claiming damages totalling £2500, Reginald Charles Boddie, sales organiser, 65 Roseneath Terrace, Wellington, took action in the Supreme Court yesterday against James Dickson Sievwright, retired, of 239 The Terrace, Wellington. Five separate slanderous statements were alleged to have been made, and the plaintiff claimed £5OO damages in respect of each.

The case is being heard by Mr. Justice Ostler. Mr, C. Evans Scott Is for the plaintiff, and Mr. H. F. O’Leary, ■with him Mr. A. B. Sievwright, is for the defendant. In July, 1932, stated the claim, a syndicate was formed in Wellington, of which plaintiff and defendant were members, for the manufacture, sale, and development of a certain chemical preparation., . At the date, of the slanderous statements alleged to have been made by the defendant, the plaintiff was. and still is. engaged in conducting and developing the sale of the preparation in Wellington and other cities and towns in the North Island, as a member of and on behalf of the syndicate. The alleged slanders were five in number, and defendant was alleged to have said In March, 1933, on different dates, among other things: “You (H. J. Lockyer) have-been taken down by Boddie, and will never get your money back”; “Boddie has failed to account for money collected on behalf of the business”; “Boddie is a rogue, and the police are after him. Boddie ought to be in gaol”; “Boddie took . money from Mrs. Miller for shares, and £2 10/- from another man, and has not ' passed it on”: and on the last occasion. “Boddie is crooked and not honest.” The defence was a general denial that the statements were made, or if it was proved that the words were used they were spoken bona fide and without malice and on a privileged occasion. It was further submitted that the words were incapable of the meaning alleged by the plaintiff, and if it were proved that he spoke the .words alleged, they were in their natural and ordinary signification true in substance and in fact. , . Formed a Syndicate. Mr. Evans Scott said plaintiff had been in the merchant service and the flying service during the war, and came to New Zealand in 1926. In 1930'he moved to Christchurch, where he was interested in a disinfectant for milk cans? It was a strong, odourless disinfectant, and was so successful that a company, was formed to enlarge the sales. A disagreement over policy arose, and plaintiff resigned in June, 1931, coming to Wellington about six months later. He started an organisation to sell the preparation in the North Island, and a syndicate was formed consisting of plaintiff and his wife, the defendant Mr. Sievwright. Mr. Neale. Mr. Da.we,. and Mrs. Miller, to take over the interest in the formula and goodwill, in the business. Other steps were taken, and it was proposed to bring in an analyst to perfect the formula and avoid litigation with the Christchurch company. Plaintiff worked up sales for the preparation, and evidence would show that when-the' business was flourishing de l fendant.decided to push the defendant out of it so that the other members of the syndicate could reap the benefit. Mr. Sievwright became vindictive and malicious, and in February last plaintiff and his wife were called upon to forfeit their shares. In March last a company was formed, and the names of plaintiff, his wife, and Mr. Dawe were left off the list of shareholders. It was In March that the alleged Slanderous statements were made.

Plaintiff gave evidence as to how the formula came into being at Christchurch, and was prepared by Mr. Ruddle, an analytical chemist. Plaintiff’s evidence related to the business transactions, as the witness is to give evidence again on a question of justification.

Arthur Stanley Gyles, printer. Wellington, said that the statements alleged in the claim were made by the defendant when he called at witness’s office in reference to the printing account for the syndicate. Mr. Slev■wright said plaintiff was responsible for the printing and not the syndicate. Witness was somewhat' deaf, and Mr. Sievwright spoke so loudly that his remarks were heard by others in the office,. Several employees of the last witness, and also his son, accountant, gave evidence tb show that the statements attributed to Mr. Sievwright were made by him in such, a loud voice that they could not help hearing'them. Athol R. Roberts, who had been celling the preparation under the direction of plaintiff, said defendant told him that “Boddie is crooked and not honest.” Evidence for Defence. Mr. O’Leary, for the defence, said it would be submitted that the occasions were qualified privilege and without malice, and further that what was said •was justified. The plaintiff made his presence known in Wellington In January or February, 1932, when he advertised for someone with £5O to communicate with him, when a beneficial business proposal would be made. A Mrs. Miller, wife- of an ex-soldier, answered fhe advertisement, and ■ let Boddie have £5O on the security of the formula, which, with the assets, were to go to her in the event of the £5O not being returned. He was not the inventor of the preparation. Later the plaintiff wanted more money, and went to Mr. Sievwright in March, 1932, and on receiving £lO again pledged the formula as security for the money Mr. Sievwright then knowing nothing of the transaction with Mrs. Miller. Since then the formula had not gone out of the possession of the defendant. After getting that money plaintiff apparently sold another share to Mr. W. T. Neale, and gradually the true position was revealed to the defendant, Mrs. Miller and Mr, Neale, that they had each parted with their money for the same thing. As they could not get their money back by ordinary means the syndicate was formed. Business was commenced, but was unsatisfactory up to the end of the year. Mr. Sievwright would not tolerate the position, and refused to sign cheques.

Counsel then referred to a door which the plaintiff, when residing at Haywards, had sold to Mr. Sievwright fo. 10/-. but which he had no right to sell. Counsel then described at some length how the formula was prepared by Mr. Ruddle at Christchurch and was sold, to a company. The formula was to have been locked up in a safe for security, but the plaintiff said fan bad

destroyed it. Mr. Ruddle knew the formula, so the manufacture proceeded. The sale of the formula was a complete sale of all rights connected with it, and was not restricted to the South Island. The company was called the “Nados Company,” after the name given to the preparation. Mr. McKeliar, the chairman of the company, would give evidence to that effect, and that when Boddie was getting money from Mrs. Miller and Mr. Sievwright and selling interests in the formula he was gcting fraudulently, as the formula belonged to the Christchurch company. Counsel made other statements regarding plaintiff which he submitted went to show that defendant was justified in making the statements which he admitted making. There were grounds for saying about plaintiff that the police were “inquiring about him,” which was the expression defendant used, not that the po’lce were "after binu** It was ajso alleged that the plaintiff had borrowed money on chattels in Auckland and, appropriated the money, the amount of the loan still being due. , Arthur McKellar. public accountant. Christchurch, gave details of the purchase of the formula by the Christchurch company, which took over the sole rights. Plaintiff had no right to the formula, and when asked for it said he bad destroyed it. The formula produced wa. the original one prepared by Mr. Ruddle, who was manager and manufacturer for the Christchurch company. The company was still going, and was not in financial difficulties. Neither had it contemplated going into liquidation, but reconstruction had been discussed. Plaintiff had not negotiated with the company regarding the sale of the preparation in the North Island, and had no right to do so. The hearing will be resumed this morning.