LIBEL ALLEGED

Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 111, 13 May 1933, Page 12

LIBEL ALLEGED

OIL COMPANIES' CI+AIM

ISSUE OF PAMPHLETS

(Special to "The Evening Post.") PALMERSTON N., This Bay. Alleging that their credit and reputation had been brought into public odium and contempt, the Vacuum Oil Company and Atlantic Oil Company took action in the Palmerston North Supreme Court yesterday seeking damages for libel and an injunction restraining James Henry Bodle, service station proprietor, Spooners, Ltd. (printers), and Watson and Eyre (printers) from printing and publish- j ing certain pamphlets which were considered of a libellous nature. The first pamphlet complained of contained the following words: "Does it (meaning motor spirit^,- come from the oil combine that has been charged with manipulating its invoices to dodge taxation." The second, circular contained the words: "We have not noticed any editorial comment on the tax:dodging propensities of the Oil Octopus." The third circular read inter alia: "Are you still buying Voeo, Atlantic, Texaco, Plume, Union, or Vacuum Oil, all of which are products, of companies referred to by the Petrol Commission as the foreign oil corporation, by members of Parliament as the iniquitous monopoly—the people, who have increased your financial burden by dodging income tax," and, "It was asked whether the Minister of Oust toms intended to prosecute the companies for faking invoices." Pamphlet No. 4 stated: "Eumours of war. Tentacle of' Oil Octopus1 against petrol service company. For repeating charges made by Petrol Commission and repeating statements made by merefoers of Parliament. They are as follows: That they did manipulate their invoices—that they did-so escape some taxation." In. his statement of defence Bodle adrtitted the circulars but denied that they were false and malicious.'. The words in their true sense and natural meaning were true in substance and in fact. He further stated that, on October 6, 1931, a report was prepared by the Department of'lndustries and Commerce and was presented to' both Houses of Parliament." It dealt with' an investigation into the price of petrol and its distribution, and he craved leave to refer to that report and proceedings of the House reported in Hansard in support of the truth of what, he had said in the pamphlets. It was, fair comment on a matter of public interest. The evidence showed that the defendant had quoted the remarks of members of the House when the report was being discussed as well as certain statements from the report, itself. Part of the plaintiffs' contention was that the defendant was endeavouring to push the sale of Kussian benzine to the detriment of the product of the major oil companiesi After hearing the. evidence, Mr. Justice Beed reserved, his decision. ■■■•„