THE PLAINTIFF

Evening Post, Volume XCVII, Issue 38, 15 February 1919, Page 9

THE PLAINTIFF

VERDICT IN SLANDER ACTION

GRIERSON v. THACKER

HUNDRED GUINEAS DAMAGES.

The slander action Griereon v. Thacker was concluded yesterday, when the jury found for plaintiff with one hundred guineas damages. The case was one in whiqli Alexander Hugh Griersoh, of Wellington, lieutenant in .the New Zealand Expeditionary Force, claimed from' Henry Thomas Joynt Thacker, of Christchurch, medical practitioner and member of Parliament, £5000 as damages for alleged slander. Mr. Justice Chapman and a jury of twelve heard the claim. The words of the slander alleged to have been uttered by Dr. Thacker in an election meeting at the Town Hall -were : "A few of us, Madame Boeufve and others, wore auspicious of Griereon. and had his boxes searched. We found evidence that he was an arrant German spy. Sir James Allen told us that he was an elegant English gentleman of four hundred years' standing, but he had scarcely got to the front when he went over to the enemy." An amended statement of defence was put in. Instead of a mere denial of the words'which were the basis of the complaint, defendant stated that his

words in the speech were : "Madame Boeufvc and others examined Grierson's boxes at his lodgings, and found articles which led them to believe that he was a German. The Anti-German League and certain members of Parliament voicing what they regarded as strong public opinion, tried to induce tho Minister of Defence *to prevent Griereon going to the front, but Sir James Allen assured

us that he was an English gentleman of 400 years' standing, and Grieraon left

this country with one of tho reinforcements, and now fresh criticisms of him are coming from the boys at the front." Mr. T. Young and Mr. T. Neave appeared for the plaintiff, and Sir John Findlay, K.C., and Mr. F. W. Johnston for the defendant.

After the Post went to press yesterday further 'evidence' was tendered for the defence.

Angus N. Poison, land agent, and a candidate at the Wellington North byelection, said he had heard Dr. Thacker say that Nimot had proved himself to be a German spy, and had gone over to the enemy on the Western' front. Dr. Thacker had referred to Grierson at the same time. Dr. Thacker had said that Nimot and Grierson had been sent to the front without proper inquiries. Witness was sure that Dr. Thacker had said nothing whatever. about Grierson going over to the enemy; the words were spoken about Nimot. Witness was close to Dr. Thacker, and was following the speech keenly. When it was alleged that' Dr. Thacker had referred to Grierson witness believed that somebody had "spun Sir James Allen a yarn." To . Mr. Young : Witness said Dr. Thacker had come up at witness's invitation to help him in his candidature for Wellington North. Dr. Thacker had not financed him for the campaign, but had lent, him money. After the" election witness did not see Dr. Thacker for some months; it was after Dr. Thacker's return from' Australia. Witness had not 6poken then to Dr. Thacker about the Grierson incident, as he had only a brief conversation while Dr. Thacker. was hurrying to catch a boat. Witness remembered Badger speaking to him after the Town Hall meeting, and witness replied : "That is not my funeral, but Dr. Thacker's." Witness did not re-, member the use of the phrase "alien. Hun" by Dr. Thacker in reference to Grierson. Dr. Thacker used the words "alien Hun" in his speech in regard to the German menace, but witness did not remember hearing the words applied to Grierson.

Dr. Thacker had referred to Tumours which had come from the front about Grierson.

To Sir John Findlay : Witness said he was quite clear on the point that Dr. Thacker had not stated that Grierson had gone over to the enemy. This concluded the case for the defence. Sir John Findlay, in his address to the jury, said that Dr. Thacker had never tajten advantage of the privileges of Parliament to allege that Grierson had deserted, or to ask a question of the Government. If he had thought that Grieson had gone over to the enemy the thing for him to do would have been to raise the question in Parliament. They did not say, and they never had said, that Grierson had deserted. If the jury found against Grierson, there would bo no reflection on/Grierson, who would leave the Court without" a stain on his character; but if they found a verdict for Grierson and against Thacker they branded a man who had done good public service as a perjurer. , Mr. Neave said the defence had endeavoured to poison the mind of the jury by_ references to the Commission of Inquiry, .though the Commission had exonerated Grierson entirely. What right had Dr. Thacker to complain of not receiving formal notice of this action, when he had adopted the dastardly method of attacking a man who was at the time thousands of miles away, and for all he knew facing the enemy guns'. ! The purpose of the statement, he said, was to strike at the Government through Grierson. If Grierson failed in this action, this would be the end of him..

His_ Honour, in summing up, said that in this case there, were two issues: Was the slander uttered, and, if so, what damages should be awarded ? Tlie usual 'third issue as to the interpretation of the words' did not arise. His Honour pointed out that it was from five to eight months between the time when witnesses the defence heard the speech and the date when they were required to state their, recollection of it to tlie solicitor. They said, speaking generally, that it was not of Grierson that these statements were made. Some of the plaintiff's witnesses took some interest in Grierson; others, were surprised because they had heard he was in hospital. These witnesses were not speaking in a- negative sense, but in a positive sense, of something they said they heard. Two of them had made a record—one, the next day. and the other three weeks afterwards—of the slander alleged to have been uttered. It was entirely for the jury to decide between these witnesses and those for the defence. They had Dr. Thacker's notes from which his -speech was prepared. They had to consider whether that represented the limit of his reference to Grierson or whether in the vehemence of his attack on the Minister he exceeded that note. , His Honour further directed the jury that if they found for the plaintiff the assessment of damages was entirely a matter for them.

At, 4.35 p.m. the jury retired to consider their verdict. They returned at 5.40 p.m. with a verdict for plaintiff for 100 guineas damages. Judgment was entered accordingly, with the usual costs.

Lounge Hats, fashionable shapes and shades—all best makers, plain felts 15s 6d to 355, velours 425-.to 755. Geo. Fowlds, Ltd., Manners-street.—Advt.

For Chronic Chest Complaints, Woods' Great Peppermint Cure, 1. 6d, 2> 6d — Advt.