SLANDER PROVED

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 40, 15 August 1930, Page 15

SLANDER PROVED

DOCTOR GETS DAMAGES

JURY'S ANSWERS TO ISSUES

Answers to all the issues in favour of the plaintiff were given by the jury in the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon in the slander action brought by Dr. E. W. Richards against the Australasian Tomperancß and General Mutual Life Assurance Society, Ltd. The damages were assessed at £250, and judgment for that amount was entered for the plaintiff, with costs according to scale, witnesses' expenses, and disbursements. CONFLICT OF EVIDENCE. In his summing-up,, his Honour said that there was such a sharp conflict of evidence as to whether the words were used that it was hard to escape from the conclusion that one or other of tho witnesses was not telling the truth. Ho was bound to point out that the two married women had little or no interest ia telling a He. The question whether any words complained of in such an action were defamatory was always a matter for the jury, and all that the Judge could do was to say whether the words were capable of a defamatory meaning. Could there be any doubt, assuming that the words were used, that any reasonable man would have any difficulty in understanding what they meant? Surely if they meant anything at all they must meau that an imputation was being cast upon the competence or capacity of the plaintiff? It was defamatory not only of a professional man, but also of a tradesman to say that he was incompetent in his profession or trade. His Honour said that he had ruled that the occasion was a privileged one as between the nurse and Mrs. Bell, as they both had a common interest in the subject matter. However, Mrs. Little did not have such a common interest. Did the fact, then, that the nurse chose.to speak the words, in her presence show malice? The nurse had admitted in her evidence that she knew nothing whatever..against the . doctor. If a person spoke words she knew to be untrue, that was conclusive evidence of nialice. If the jury found that she had spoken' the words,; and accepted her evidence that she knew nothing about "the doctor,1 then they should answer the fourth issue in" the affirmative. ;; doctor's Deputation. :'.'>On the question of damages, his Honour said that he wau. disposed to agree with: the observations made by Mr. O'Learyt!. at the plaintiff was not tho kind of man to try to make money out of the incident, but simply, wished to protect his reputation. ; The issues and the answers made by the jury after a, retirement of nearly two hours were as follow:— (1) ,Wcro thG words alleged in the statement of claim or similar words spoken by the mirseI ?— Yes. : (2) Were tho words spoken by Hie nurse to Mrs. Bell and Mrs. Little defamatory of the plaintiff? —Yes. .;■■ (o) If ao, was the nurse, when she spoke .those words.in ..the presence of Mrsi: -Little./acting bona fide or was she actuatea>-by i malice?— Malice. (4) If the worda spoken by the nurse were defamatory of the plaintiff, was she, in speaking -hose words to Mrs. Bell, actuated by malice?— Yes. (5) What damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover from the defendant?—£2so. His' Honour Mr. Justice Ostler was on the Bench. Mr. A. Gray, K.C., with him My. J.S. Hanna, appeared for the; plaintiff, and Mr. E. P. Bunny, with him Mr. H. F. O'Leary, for the defendant company.