LIBEL CLAIM

Greymouth Evening Star, 15 May 1943, Page 4

LIBEL CLAIM

QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE

WELLINGTON, May 14. An indication that he was prepared to rule that the occasion was one of qualified privilege was given by the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers) in the libel action by Myra Cohen against T. C. A. Hisiop,’ Mayor of Wellington, and chairman of the Wellington Patriotic Committee. The action was founded on a letter allegedly dictated by Hislop to an employee of ,the committee on February 5, and allegedly falsely , and maliciously published to the honorary secretary and the honorary treasurer. The letter, which was over the secretary’s signature and addressed to the plaintiff, then supervisor of the Combined Women’s Services’ Club, referred to the acceptance of her resignation.

Mr Watson, for the defence, said that the case had been presented with much bitterness and hostility towards the Hislops, but there was a complete answer to the attacks. The real question was whether the letter containing the words “gross misconduct” was libellous, and, if so, whether it was actionable. Mr Watson said that Hislop would deny absolutely that he had used the insulting and extravagant language which the plaintiff had alleged. She had said that she would be satisfied with an absolute withdrawal of all reflections on the way she had carried out her duties, but it was an impossible position for Hislop to get up in Court to make such a withdrawal after all the attacks and innuendoes against him and his wife in the last two days. His Honor indicated that he was prepared to rule that the occasion was one of qualified privilege as being a communication between the chairman and the secretary of the committee, and that that privilege could be destroyed only if it were shown that there had been malice. He further ruled that the matter was on» of public interest and that the defence of fair comment would lie, unless it were also shown that there had be-n malice.

Mr Watson asked the jury to accept the view of the defence that the plaintiff’s persistent listening-in on telephone conversations, her absolute and stubborn refusal to cooperate in the provision of an impioved midday meal, her frequent absence from duty, and her use of the words “disgusting waste of patriotic funds, all came under the heading of gross misconduct. In outlining the evidence for the defence, Mr Watson said that on the Saturday morning Hislop went to the club believing it interests of the club that Miss Cohen should be removed 11 om the premises as soon as possible.

EVIDENCE FOR DEFENCE. Aiisa Craig Dalhousie Hilsop, wife ol the defendant, said that the meeting of the hostel committee was held to discuss what could be done to impiove attendances of servicewomen, decided that the witness should interview heads of the women s services to find out what could be done to make the club more useful to the girls. The committee left it in her hands to carry out whatever was necessary. Witness came to the conclusion that an improved meal was desirable. Up to Tuesday, February Uith' w SS n ? com Plaint to find with Miss Cohen s conduct of the club. It was the idea of Mrs V

Jowtit (W.A.A.C. commandant) that she should visit the club that day and see how the new lunch went. Cutlery bad been sent down the previous afteinoon ami late the same afternoon wiuiess told Cohen that it was proposed to pul. on a new lunch the next day. She also told Cohen that all provisions would be down by 930 a.m Cohen said that it could not be done, as cooking was not allowed on the premises, according to the caretaker. On being told that only potatoes were required to be cooked Cohen said that no steam could be allowed.

Some days later Mr. Hislop found from the lease that cooking was not piohibited. .On Tuesday morning Cohen refused to have any part in putting on the new menu, saying that she had no helpers and would not do the work herself. There were only potatoes to cook and two pots were already on the premises. Witness and others did all the work of preparing, serving, and clearing away the lunch. Cohen had lumbago and sat at the cash desk. Cohen made no comment on being told that a similar lunch would be served in future. On the following two days witness and others prepared and served lunch, Cohen being absent. On Thursday evening, when witness told Cohen she wished to speak to her Cohen went to the desk, got money and keys, threw them along the desk to witness, and went to her room Mrs. Macfailane, said witness, was put m charge of the club on Saturday as supervisor.

Cross-examined, witness said that Mis. Gledhill had resigned as a member of the hostel committee as a result of trouble over the plaintiff Margaret Ethel Mitchell said ’that she was m charge of the club one or two days of the ■ we*k when the trouble occurred. Soon after she had arrived on the Thursday, witness asked the plaintiff about the trouble and if she would not try and coonerate. The plaintiff’s reply was: “Yes, if Mrs. Hislop will keep out of the club.” Concerning happenings on the morning of Saturday, when the defendant visited the club, witness said she heard the defendant knock loudly on the plaintiff’s door, and could hear conversation clearly. She

did not. hear him say into the telephone, “Get off that ’phone.” She only heard “Get off that ’phone.” She heard the defendant say nothing rude or abusive.