SLANDER CLAIM FAILS

Evening Post, Volume XCII, Issue 41, 17 August 1916, Page 3

SLANDER CLAIM FAILS

PATRIOTIC SOCIETY'S BAND

INSTRUMENTS

"NO IMPUTATION ON PLAINTIFF."

The hearing of the case in which Joseph Lewis, honorary secretary of the Wellington Patriotic Society, claimed £501 damages, for alleged slander, from Stanley H. Homer, Wellington manager for Chas. Begg and Co., Ltd., was continued in the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon, after The Post had gone to press.

The defendant, in the course of his cross-examination, by Mr. J. J. M'Grath, counsel for the plaintiff, said that his reason for offering an apology—a private apology as man to man—to the plaintiff was because he had mentioned the latter's business reputation. Plaintiff was not prepared to accept a private apology, and he (defendant) declined to make a public apology, especially when it was for something he did not say. He was not aware that plaintiff offered to pay the cost of printing the published apology if he (defendant) gave him the right to publish it.

Mr. M'Grath : Are you defending this action yourself, or is the company defending it?

Defendant: The company is defending it. It is a matter of the company's business.

In further reply to Mr. Blair, defendant said he had never made use of the words in the statement of defence (as a ground of defence) referring to a certain firm, having shareholders of German birth. It was totally against the policy of his firm to make any such reference.

This concluded the case for the defence, and Mr. Blair asked if his Honour intended to put issues to the jury. His Honour: Oh. we'll, Mr. Blair, you can mention issues if you like. It seems to me that what the jury has to consider is, were the words complained of uttered, and if they were uttered, whether they imputed misconduct. If the jury thought that the words were uttered and imputed misconduct they would then have to consider, the question of damage. Mr Blair held that the words were not actionable as they did not impute a crime.

His Honour said that surely the words would be actionable if they imputed misconduct and brought the plaintiff under tTie reprobation of honest men.

After counsel had addressed the Court, his Honour, at the request of Mr. M'Grath, put the following issues to the jury:— (1) Were the words charged uttered by the defendant to plaintiff ? (2) If so, do they impute dishonesty or misconduct on the part of the plaintiff in the absolute meaning? (3) Do they bear the meaning put upon them in the fourth paragraph of the statement of claim? (4) Were they uttered with the express intention to injure plaintiff? (5) What damages, if any, is plaintiff entitled to? After a short retirement the jury returned with answers in the negative to each of the issues. On the motion of Mr. Blair, judgment was entered for the defendant with costs according to scale. His Honour said that he hoped it was distinctly understood by the press, and that the solicitors on either side would agree, that the result of the trial cast no imputation whatever on the plaintiff or the Patriotic Society. , Mr. Blair said he was glad that his Honour had afforded him an opportunity of saying that both he and his colleague had the greatest admiration for the work of Mr. Lewis and the Patriotic Society.