LIBEL ACTION

Greymouth Evening Star, 18 May 1943, Page 2

LIBEL ACTION

MAYOR HISLOP’S EVIDENCE

WELLINGTON, May 17. The libel action by Myra Cohen against T. C. A. Hislop, Mayor of Wellington, and chairman of tne Wellington Patriotic Committee, was continued in the Supreme Court today before the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers) and a jury. fne plaintiff seeks £5Ol damages. The action was founded on a lettei allegedly dictated by Hislop to an employee of the committee on Beoruary 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 tne Combined Women’s Services- _Cluo, referred to the acceptance of her resignation. ' , Giving evidence for the defence. Frank Reginald Jones, a member oi the Metropolitan Patriotic Committee, said he was present at the meeting which unanimously approved Hislop’s action in accepting Cohen’s resignation. Hislop moved that his action be confirmed. Replying to the judge, Mr Watson, counsel for ths defendant, said that, the minutes showed that Hislop had read Cohen’s letter and the letter he dictated in reply to the meeting. Hislop, giving evidence, sam ne had been Mayor of Wellington for 12 years. When the club started, only 10 to 12 girls came daily for the midday meal. The attendance was now about 1000 a week. After describing the arrangements for improving the meals, Hislop denied having tola the plaintiff that he would corne down and throw her out; but said she had no right to speak to Mrs Hislop as she had done. Cohen said: “Ah, listening in were you?” He said: How dare you speak like that? If you go on like this, you will be dismissed. - On hearing from Ward of her letter of resignation, he said: “I accept -..t, and breathed a sigh of relief, thinking it would be a solution of all the trouble. Admitting dictating the letter to her, he said he believed then, and now, that the words in it were justified. Hislop said he was still prepared to make an apology if the words could be construed to be a reflection on the plaintiff’s personal character, but he was not prepared to withdraw their application to the plaintiff’s running of the club. “I am not prepared to purchase peace w.th a lie,” he said. When the cross-examination was concluded, counsel declared that the defendant’s case was closed. His Honor then asked the witness a series of questions. His Honor: Whether the statement is true or false, it is offensive? —Yes. When you saw the letter from plaintiff you regarded it as a resignation?—Yes. If it was a resignation, what was the necessity for putting in the additional sentence? Witness said the letter was more than a resignation. It contained a charge of disgusting waste of patriotic moneys against all the women who had been working at the club those days. Pl® felt that 'something more than a letter of acceptance was needed.

His Honor: Why did you not put in detail the grounds on which she would have been instantly dismissed? —I admit now it would have been better.

The Court adjourned till to-mor-i'ow morning, when counsel will address the jury.