DEFAMATION PROVED

Dominion, Volume 31, Issue 144, 15 March 1938, Page 14

DEFAMATION PROVED

West Coast Unionists In Court Action DAMAGES NOT ACCEPTED By Telegraph—Press Association. Greyinoutli, March 14. Several well-known unionists figured in an action brought in the Magistrates’ Court this, afternoon by Sophia Elizabeth McLagan. Brunner, wife of A. McLagan, president of the New Zealand Federation of Labour (Mr. W. D. Taylor), against John Rea, Greymouth, of the executive of the Westland Timber Workers’ Union (Mr. J. W. Hannan), alleging defamation of character and claiming £lOO damages. After lengthy evidence, Mr. R. Ferner, S.M., found the case proved and subsequently counsel announced that plaintiff had no intention of making money out of the action, and she and her husband would be satisfied if Rea paid costs. The statement of claim alleged: (1) That on November 14 last defendant falsely and maliciously spoke and published the following words: “You know quite well what Doyle is doing. He gave his wife to McLagan and they are both living with her”; (2) plaintiff was formerly the wife of the person referred to as Doyle; (3) plaintiff is now the wife of the person referred to as McLagan; (4) defendant meant by the said words that plaintiff was living with her husband and at the same time committing adultery or having improper relations with Doyle. At the request of Mr. Taylor, the date was amended to November 12. In his judgment the magistrate sard the action ha, arisen following a vigorous union controversy, but controversies of that kind were matters for the union concerned, and should be settled at meetings of the union. The court was not concerned with them in the least except insofar as the evidence affected the credibility of witnesses. Nor was the court concerned with opinions about either Communism or divorce. He had no hesitation in saying the statement was made and was no mere innuendo, but had a plain defamatory meaning. It should be taken into consideration that the w ; ords were uttered by one who ■ held strong views regarding the indissolubility of marriage. When Mr. Taylor made the announceriffrif that Mr.’ and Mrs. McLagan did not want money, the magistrate said he ’ thbfig’hf it’a very proper attitude. Mr. Hannan said he thought it a very gradibtis tuition' Arid would advise his client to accept. He repeated that defendant had rid intention of defaming Mrs. McLagan. The case was adjourned sine die.