DAMAGES AWARDED

Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 39, 16 February 1933, Page 9

DAMAGES AWARDED

DOG CLUB SECRETARY

JURY'S VERDICT. FOR £170

CLAIM-AGAINST A ,VET.

On'his claim in tho Supreme Court for £450 damages for slander against Fred Crossley, veterinary surgeon, Percival Rhys Wingrove, secretary of the Tailwaggers* Club, was awarded £170 by the jury after a retirement of under an hour yesterday afternoon. The hearing of tho action -occupicil two full days. As reported in yesterday's "Post," after Mr. W.E. Leicester (counsel for the plaintiff)-anc£ Mr. G. G. G. Watson, who appeared with Mr. H. J. V. James for the defendant, had addressed the jury, the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers,.summed up. In his address to the. jury, his Honour pointed out that they were not trying the club or the club.'s veterinary adviser. Ho thought it a proper observation to make,; however, that if Crossley's sole object in his conversations with Miss Aitken and with Mr. and Mrs. Petre was to try and prevent the maltreatment of dogs, was it not a very extraordinary thing that /he' did not take steps to have this veterinary adviser prosecuted? That would have been the proper course to take, because, according to Crossley, it was not Wingrove really .except to tie extent that he might have been responsible for the veterinary adviser's- appointment, but the actions of this adviser he was so angry about. His Honour quoted the legal position -in the case of a person who, not beingfa registered veterinary surgeon, adopted the title or in any way held himself out to be duly registered and qualified. He said he confessed it seemed to him to be difficult to understandwhy Mr. Hislop, who held a'r_iponsible position in the city, and was the president of the Tailwaggers' Club, did not take that step at the beginning of November, when he was approached by Crossley in connection with the maltreatment of dogs. But, as ho had said, the jury were not called upon to try the. veterinary adviser or tho club.

THE LIST OF CONVICTIONS.

Before telling the jury what was meant; by slander ;in. so far, as the, de- j finition'nnd principles were applicable to the case,- his Honour said.there were one or two things he would like to-say. One of the things Crossley was alleged! to have done, and which it was proved, indeed admitted that he had, was to show to three people, Miss Aitken and Mr. and Mrs. Petre, a list of previous! convictions ;. of . Wingrove. "Now, gentlemen," his Honour went on, "you may think that perhaps that was very 'unworthy conduct. You may possibly think it was, most despicable conduct, for a person to go round; with a list i of previous convictions concerning a i man in Tegard to whom ho himself says , in this box (the witness-box) he "had i no suggestion of dishonesty to maki> '■ in connection with th© position Wingrove occupies, "f But while such con ' duct-' might be looked upon as nn worthy or despicable, he was bound to say that the mere publication of th.. list of convictions could not found ;> cause of action for damagesfor slander, because one of the very ingredi ents of slander was the falsity of the : statement named. If, then, A made a statement against B which appeared to be defamatory, and B .brought an action, A might plead what was called justification. That meant merely the truth of the statement made, and if he could show the statement made was true, then the plaintiff could not recover, - because one of the ingredients necessary to found a slander" >cfcion was absent, namely, the falsity of the statement made. , Although, said his Honour, the publication^ the list of convictions was not in itself a cause of action, nevertheless,- it was not without significance on the-question of damages if the jury came to tho conclusion that the plaintiff had proved his case, and it was not- without: significance on the question of Crossley's veracity, because he had- tried to impress upon them that he had in mind, only the ono question of maltreatment of dogs. The jury might well ask themselves, therefore, why on earth Crossley should be carrying about • tho list of convictions if that was his solo object, and if, as he had- said,: he ' made no suggestion of dishonesty against Wingrove in connection with'his work as secretary of the Tailwaggcrs' Club.

POSITION OF POLICE.

-His Honour said a good deal had been said about the list of convictions having been obtained, and he thought it only, fair to say that there was no suggestion against the police of having divulged information as to their records which they did not, in accordance with their practice and for the purpose of their duties, divulge to members of the public. The list must havo been obtained for some purpose, and the publication of it —three times if. the evidence.was believed—did seem to be a. matter going to the question of Crossley's_ veracity, when he was found in conflict with another witness or other witnesses, and it also went to the question of damages if the jury found that the plaintiff was entitled to recover. His Honour then referred to the allegations and to the evidence. He said the first question was whether the words complained of wore used, and, if so, the second was as to what was their meaning. Then, if it was found that slander had been proved, the question of damages arose. The jury retired at 4.37 p.m., and returned with their verdict at 5.30 p'm .On the application of Mr. Leicester! his Honour entered judgment for the plaintiff for the amount awarded, with costs.