FARMERS FALL OUT

Evening Star, Issue 20020, 10 November 1928, Page 4

FARMERS FALL OUT

SLANDER CLAIM FAILS JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT Percy Frederick Smith failed to establish his claim against Richard Wilson for £SOO for alleged in the Supremo Court yesterday, His Honour Mr Justice MacGregor giving judgment lor Wilson, with costs. Mr A. G. Neill appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr J. B. Callan for the defendant.

The allegation of the plaintiff wa.s that at the sheep dog trials near Pembroke on May 10 defendant said plaintiff turned cattle on to his property to thieve the grass, and also said plaintiff was a thief. The case for the plaintiff was heard yesterday morning, and in the afternoon defendant, giving evidence, said lie had been manager of Wanaka Station for five years. When the plaintiff’s son went to Wanaka Station for stragglers witness told him that he had decided to erect the boundary fence in its proper place. On May 10 witness was introduced to the plaintiff, who asked him if he had made a statement that the plaintiff had shorn some of the Lake Wanaka sheep. Witness said; “No, but the sheep were shorn, and they came in from the Cardrona side.” Witness said he was going to put up a fence for his own protection, and the plaintiff said witness could not do that without giving notice. Witness said ho could, because there was a road line between them. The plaintiff .said there was no road line, and called witness a liar. _ Witness replied by calling the plaintiff a liar. The plaintiff was very abusive, and wanted to fight witness. Alter witness had had a conversation with Anderson, asking him what he would do .with a man who had twenty head of cattle thieving witness’s grass. The plaintiff and his son then drove away in a motor car, returning later on with a man named M'Lennan. Subsequently witness said to the plaintiff: “Look hero. Smith, you have done your d——st all morning to make me commit a breach of the peace. If there is any more of it I will take you by the car and give you in charge.” Witness never wanted to tight the plaintiff. After other witnesses had given corroboration of defendant’s account His Honour said he would like to hear what Mr Neill had to say. Mr Neill said ho presumed His Honour wanted to hear him on the law.

His Honour: Particularly as to i/e point whether you have proved that tho slander amounts to an accusation of crime.

Mr Neill submitted that to call a man a thief was in itself defamatory. His Honour said there was no doubt about that, but he had to bo satisfied that there was an accusation of crime. Mr Neill submitted that the onus was on the defendant to prove that tho facts and circumstances showed that the words were not to be understood as meaning theft, _ and proceeded to quote authorities in support of that contention.

His Honour said that did not carry tho matter far enough. Mr Neill’s difficulty was to get over tho fact that one of his own witnesses had said that he did not understand that tho plaintiff was accused of theft, but only of trespass.

His Honour, in giving Ids decision, said that for some unexplained' reason this case had been tried without a jury. Tho issues of law and fact were fairly dearly defined. Ho did not think tho i plaintiff had succeeded in proving his case. It was essential in a case of this sort that the precise words charged should be proved fairly accurately, but here there was a clear distinction between the words which tho plaintiff said the defendant used and tho words which it was admitted the defendant spoke. The plaintiff’s son said he did not hear the words “that man is a thief.” There was some doubt whether the -words were used, and there was no reference to them in a letter written that very night by the plaintiff when the facts were fresh in his mind. His Honour said ho had considerable doubt about accepting proof of the word's “ that man’s a thief.” On the evidence he doubted very much whether he should not have non-suited tho plaintiff. He was satisfied that it had not been proved that tho words referred to could bo accepted in the sense of a charge of ciime. Ho had to discharge tho unpleasant duty of saying what, in his opinion, was the meaning of the words that were published. He thought that Anderson rightly considered these words as not meaning that_Smith was a thief, but as an allegation that he had run some of his cattle on Lake Warmka Station, and that they had eaten some grass. It was not disputed that some of the cattle did that. The whole case began and ended with the charge of cattle running on t|io stjtion and thieving or eating some grass. That was not a crime, and ho did not think it was understood as a crime. His decision was that the words imputed merely civil trespass, for which a civil remedy would be appropriate. Further, he did not think there was any doubt about the words being used on a privileged occasion. It was apparent that Smith did bis best to force a quarrel. Judgment must be for the defendant, with costs according to scale, disbursements, and witnesses’ expenses to be fixed by the registrar.