A "PLACARD WAR”

Evening Star, Issue 20428, 8 March 1930, Page 22

A "PLACARD WAR”

TRADESMEN'S RIVALRY LEADS TO LIBEL [Pan Uxitsd Pszss Association. l WELLINGTON, March 7. What Mr A. J. Mazongarb (counsel for appellant) described as a “ placard war” between two tradesmen occupying adjacent shops on the main road, Upper Hutt, was the subject of an appeal case heard at tho Supreme Court to-day by the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers). Mr Mazengarb stated that the appeal was on a matter of law and fact from the decision given in tho lower court in September by Mr T. B. M'Neill, S.M., on a claim for £SO for libel brought by Alexander Nelson Clark, draper, against John Vare, boot imported. Vare took exception to-Clark occasionally selling boots as ' well as drapery, and when Clark put up a placard in his shop advising the sale of a bankrupt’s stock ot boots, Vare responded with a placard stating: “ We do 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, ou or about January 30, 1929, another placard shown by Clark was replied to by Vare with the placard complained of: “Oho man, one trade, one wife.” That was regarded by Clark as attributing immoral conduct to him, it being admittedly common knowledge in the district that Clark was living apart from his wife, and his housekeeper was separated from her husband. This “ placard war ” bad been going on lor three years or more. Clark took action for libel, and the magistrate gave judgment in his favour, with costs against Vare. That decision was now appealed against. His Honour said 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 tho case as a matter of law only, saying in liis oral judgment that if it was before a judge and jury it would bo a case to withdraw from the jury. But that, stated His Honour, was m his view erroneous. It was plain that a judge would not have nonsuited appellant, and that the question must have been submitted to a jury who, in the circumstances, could only have come to tho conclusion that the placard complained of was aimed 'against appellant. He had himself no doubt that they did bear, and were intended to boarj the meaning attributed to them by, appellant. He therefore uphold the appeal. It would bo for the magistrate to assess the damages.