"A PLACARD WAR"

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 56, 7 March 1930, Page 10

"A PLACARD WAR"

UPPER HTJTT SHOPS

LIBEL APPEAL SUCCEEDS

What Mr. A. J. Mazengarb (counsel for the appellant) described as "a placard war" between two tradesmen occupying adjacent shops on Main road, Upper Hutt, was the subject of an appeal case heard at the Supreme Court to-day by the Chief Justice, the Hon. Sir Michael Myers. Mr. Mazengarb stated that the appeal was on a matter of law and fact from a decision given in tho Lower Court in September last by Mr. T. B. M'Neil, S.M., on a claim for £50 for libel, brought by. Alexander Nelson Clark,. draper against John Vare, boot importer. Vare took exception to Clark occasionally selling boots as well as drapery, and when Clark put up a placard in his shop, advising a sal© of a bankrupt stock of boots, Vare responded with a placard stating: "Wedo not sell bankrupt stock, but we sell under cost price." Some time later Clark placarded in his window a fire sale- of boots, and Vare put up a. placard "Hutt War Sale"; and on or about 30th January, 1929, another placard shown by Clark was replied to by Vare with the placard complained of —"piie Man, One Trade, One Wife." That was regarded by Ciark as attributing' immoral conduct -to him, it being admittedly common knowledge in the district that Clark was living apart from * his wife, and that Ms housekeeper was separated from her husband. The "placard war," had been going on for three years or more. Clark toojj action for libel, and the Magistrat* gave judgment in his favour, with costs against Vare. That decision was now appealed against. • > Mr. C. A. L. Treadwell, who appeared for Vare, denied that there hadbeen any placard war, as alleged, and claimed that the placard complained of was capable of an innocent meaning, and was quite an innocent one so far as Vare was concerned. It had not-been, meant by him to apply to Clark at all. Vare called his shop "The Uno Boot Store"; and his placards from time to time emphasised the "Uno." He was, proud of the fact that his shop was a one-man shop, devoted to the one trade, with no man in it but himself, and tho placard in question was meant merely to stress that fact. The Magistrate had believed the man. His Honour remarked that the Magistrate did not say so in stating the case for appeal. If the Magistrate believed the man, it was a case for a jury; and lie knew> what a jury would say about it, iii view of the facts admitted to be common knowledge. After some further argument his Honour said that it was plain, in his opinion that the appeal must succeed. It was an appeal on a matter of fact and law, but the Magistrate seemed to have decided the case as a matter of law only, saying in his oral judgment that if it was before a Judge and jury, it would be a case to withdraw from the jury. But that, stated his Honour, was in his view erroneous. It xv&t plain that the Judge would not hav# nonsuited the appellant, and that th% question must have been submitted tf the jury, who, in the circumstance could only have come to the conclusion that the placard complained of was aimed against the appellant. He ha 4 himself no doubt that they did beafc and were intended to bear, the meaning attributed to them by the appellant He, therefore, upheld the appeal. jk would be for the Magistrate to assess the damages, , ■ '