ALLEGED SLANDER

Gisborne Times, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 12804, 7 March 1936, Page 4

ALLEGED SLANDER

REV. SCmiMGEOUR SUES MR. ■T. M. CAUGHEY. CLAIM FOR. £SOOO DAMAGES. TRIAL DEFERRED. TILL AUGUST I (Press Association.) AUCKLAND, March 6. An adjournment in an action for £SOOO damages for alleged slander brought by Colin Graham SorimgcoU.r, minister of religion,' against James Marsden Caughey, company director, was granted by Mr. Justice Fair in the Sunreme Court-. A. motion for the date of the trial was put forward by Mr St. Clair Brown, on behalf of defendant, and was opposed by Mr. Schramm, who appeared for plnintiffThe statement of claim set out that, at Helensville, on February 7, 1930defendant had said falsely and maliciously : “I ho Rev. Scrimgcour is a crook and could not account for the moneys entrusted to him at the Airedale Street Mission. I used to give him £2OO a year, blit, when I found out what he was doing with the money, I had my name removed from his list. ] can prove to you that he is one of the biggest rogues living. He is a fraud and a mono.vgrabber.” Plaintiff claimed £SOOO damages, the costs of the action and such, other relief as might be just. The statement of defence was a denial of any false or malicious statement concerning plaintiff. ’ It was- further stated that defendant had sent the following letter to plaintiff'before the issue of the writ:

“I was surprised at receiving a letter from your solicitor demanding a public apology or, failing that, threatening action for'slander for remarks alleged to have been made by me concerning you.r honesty, seeing that we have known one another for some years ; that von have been in my house; that you have been my guest at the Pacific Club; and that no unfriendly word has ever passed between 11s. I am surprised that you should have given credence to such a statement. Prior to the receipt of Mr. Schramm’s letter, T had already refuted such an allegation. On no occasion have I questioned your integrity or honesty of purpose nor would any such criticism bo justified. 1 can only assure you that your informant has completely misunderstood mo. If you so desire it, you may give any publicity you wish to this letter.”

In moving for a postponement of the date of the trial, Mr. Brown said the allegation of slander was completely denied. An affidavit by defendant set out that, on February 17. he received a letter threatening the issue of a writ, Defendant replied on Feb ruarv 21, informing plaintiff that lie was leaving for England on business on March 12. The writ was served on defendant on March 5. Mr Brown asked that the hearing should he postponed until the October session, because defendant and his son had to visit Britain for important business reasons.

! “Plaintiff in this action is making an allegation supported by one person and one person alone,” Mr Brown said. “It is absolutely denied hv defendant, who is a man of unblein- : islietl reputation. No harm can result j to plaintiff if the action is allowed to stand down until defendant’s return j from England.” Mr. Sell ram m said that plaintiff opposed the postponement as he wnnt;ed the matter disposed of at the earliest, opportunity. It was accepted that- the reservation to England was made before the issue of tho writ. He suggested that, if His Honor saw fit to grant the adjournment, 'it- should he to the July sittings of the Court. It would he the middle of August bc--1 fore the ease could he called and that would save three months, j Tlis Honor: “Is it to lie a jury case?” S Mr. Schramm : “Yes, if Your Honor pleases.”. I Subsequently, Mr. Brown conferred ■ with his client and staled that defendant would be content with an adjournI ment to the July session. An adjournment was accordingly made, His Honor directing that the case should not ho hoard earlier than August 13.