ALLEGED SLANDER

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 118, 22 May 1925, Page 8

ALLEGED SLANDER

THE EASTBOURNE CASE.

The hearing of the action for alleged slander brought by Bito A. Morton against Beal Pritchett (N.Z.), Ltd., and Charles Walker Laird, claiming £200 damages,, was continued before the Supreme Court to-day before Mr. Justice Ostler and a jury of four. Mr. B. R. Kennedy appeared for plaintiff, and Tvlr. 0. C. Mazengarb for the defendants. ''.•-'

After counsel had addressed the jury Mr. Justice Ostler summed up, pointing out that slander was to speak words to a third person which might result, in damage to the person spoken of or in his loss of esteem,in the eyes of others, The words alleged to have been used as set out in the statement of claim were quite different to those proved in evidence. One witness (Uridge), who. was supposed- to have heard Laird make statements disparaging to Morton, said nothing in the witness-box of these statements. Nothing he had heard Laird say appeared to have any defamatory construction. Plaintiff had assigned moneys to bereceived by him to the company, and Laird, representing the company, ■had asked. Uridge, one. who had work done, to pay anything owing to ths company, and not to Morton, with whom the. company had severed its. arrangement. It was ■ for the jury to say whether such; a request was defamaiory. One witness said one thing and one another as to what remarks were madev One statement might be defamatory or , not, and the other was not. As reasonable men 'they had to decide which words..wera.,used and whether the words used had' damaged Morton. The next question was as to the slanders alleged to have been uttered to Morton's employees. It had been suggested that Laird had no right to see them at all, but he suggested that Laird had every iright to see the men on business matters, though he, of course, had no right to utter,a slander. Here, again, they had to decide whether the statements claimed to have been made, had in reality, been made as shown by the evidence., .After going through the cases remaining for the jury, his Honour sub. mitted the following issues to the jury : (1) Were the words published by the defendant Laird on the 7th March, 1925, to Uridge defamatory of the plaintiff? (2) If so, in so publishing the words, was defendant Laird acting under in-' structions or in course of his authority as a: servant o£ defendants, Beal, Pritchett, Ltd.?

; ; (4) What damages (if any) is the plaintiff entitled'to recover? ■ (4) Were the words published by, Laird on 6th March, 1925, to Macdonald French, and Rowden defamatory of the plaintiff? (5) If so, in so publishing the words, was defendant Laird acting under instructions, or in the course of his authority as a servant of Beal, Pritchett. Ltd.: (6) What damages (if any) is the plaintiff entitled to? . ■ The jury retired at lunch time,.