SLANDER CLAIM

Greymouth Evening Star, 9 October 1926, Page 5

SLANDER CLAIM

- - ——■ SOLICITOR SUES CONSTABLE. A REEFTON AFFAIR. (Special to ’‘Star.”) 1 -—-5 ■

REEFTON, October 8, Mr W. Meldrum, S.M., presided at a sitting o£ the Magistrate’s Court, today, the chief civil case being one wherein Thomas solieitor ( sued Constable Carroll, for Alleged slander, claiming £2OO ns damages. A. M. Carroll stated he was Chairman of the Inangahua County Council, and that Mr Phillips was solicitor for same. A resolution came before the Council on August 25. for Urn abolition of the oiflce of County solicitor. Witness iflet defendant on. August 19 and Was asked what the Council intended to do with Phillips. He asked Carroll what he meant. Carroll said he was worrying him about a Caso about some stable. He said that Phillips Should be hounded out of townA The statement was made in Shiel Street. Witmet him again later on, the following Sunday week. Carroll was then behind him and again stated that Phillips should be hounded out of the town. Witness stated he told Carroll he thought that a County solicitor was necessary, and he intended to vote accordingly. Witness admitted having

told Mr Phillips of Constable Carroll’s statement. The first interview took place in Shiel Street. Constable Carroll opened the conversation. Witness did not worry over Phillips losing his position, and stated that he did not canvass amongst other councillors regarding the resolution. Constable Carroll said once that Phillips should be hounded out of town .and said once that he should be pushed out of town. Constable Carroll used the words as read in the statement. Constable Carroll did most of the talking, and witness could not recall any obscene language being used on the first occasion. He knew Phillips intimately. Witness added that he was not upset over the resolution being passed, and that he did not caurtiss amongst the councillors regarding this. . Witness knew Phillips to be an honourable man. Edgar Elliston stated he was an . amalgamator and was residing at Reefton. He saw Mr A. Carroll and Constable Carroll on the Sunday referred to. Witness asked Mr A. Carroll what was biting Carroll. He was then on the road outside the Catholic Chapel grounds, and he heard nothing pass between the two men. If Constable Carroll had sworn, witness would have heard. . Thomas Phillips, solicitor, residing at Reefton, said that he had not a personal clahn against Constable roll, but had written to him regarding a claim for rent of a stable and a piece of ground. He communicated with the Department regarding same, and the Department did not acknowledge any claim. He met Carroll outside the Post Office. The constable glared at the witness, who then proceeded to Mr A. M. Carroll’s shop, where he was told of the statement. Constable Carroll stated that he met Mr A. M. Carroll on the Sunday. He again met him on the Monday night, and held a conversation with him regarding the office of County Solicitor.

Witness stated that the County Solicitor had written to his Department regarding a claim for rent due for a vacant section used by him and various police officers. Witness denied having used the language mentioned, lie knew Mr Phillips to be a quiet man. He remembered coming out of chapel on the Sunday, and saw Mr Carroll. He also saw Mr Elliston. i*e came out of the chapel grounds and held a short conversation with the two. If the language . had been used several people would have heard it. He interviewed Phillips regarding the claim, and asked Phillips not to write to the Department. He met Phillips at the Post Office, but denied having behaved in other than a normal way, and did not glare at Mr Phillips. The Magistrate, in giving his decision, said that the language was defamatory, .and therefore actionable, but that little damage had been done to Mr Phillips. Judgment was given for £2O, with costs.