SLANDER ACTION

Grey River Argus, 19 March 1940, Page 9

SLANDER ACTION

“Most Amazing Case’’ DAMAGES TOTAL £17,000 QUESTION OF FORGED RECEIPT. LONDON, February 16. Damages totalling £17,000 were awarded this week in the Kings Bench Division in a libel and slander action deferred to 'by Sir Patrick Hastings, K.C., as “one of the most amazing cases that has ever come before a Court.” Mr Justice Hilbe.y said that in the whole of his long experience no jury had been called upon to listen to a case involving graver matters. | The action was based on a com- j plaint by Mr Frank Chaplin, char. -. man of the Emu Wine Company, at | the Hon. Thomas John Ley and his son, Mr Keith Ley, had accus.'d him | of paying a bribe of £4500 to their accountant, Mr C. V. Best, in non-1 nection with the sale of shares Mr Chaplin to Mr Ley. A contract was concluded in March, 1939, by which Regional Properties of which Mr T. J. Ley was chairman and Mr Keith Ley his assistant, were to pay £64,000 for the ordinary shares of rbex Company, formed by Mr Chap- • lin to erect a block of offices. Between £150,000 and £156,000 was to paid for the ordinary shares before December, 1943. The Defendant’s Case. Regional Properties were also to pay Mr Chaplin £16,000, which he had advanced to the Ibex Company, and to free him from guarantees to a building society. Mr Chaplin was paid the £64,000, but when he wrote asking for the payment of the £16,000 i he was told that the matter was in the hands of the accountants. | The Leys’ case was that the auditor I of the Ibex Company, Mr Dormer, of Cooper Brothers, told Mr Keith Ley 1 that their accountant, Mr Best, had been bribed by Mr Chaplin and that Mr Dormer had shown Mr Ke.th Ley the receipts for that criminal pay--1 ment. I The alleged libel was published on June 18, 1939, when Mr T. J. Ley wrote to Mr Best: “It is just alleged to me that you had some secret arrangement with Chaplin and received a large sum of money for your ser- ( vices in the Ibex House matter. 1 I really cannot believe it, but think you should know and be given a chance ‘ to deny it.”

| Counsel said that Leys alleged that . Mr Chaplin drew a cheque for £4500 ', in favour of the Emu Wine Company, which was endorsed or transferred to Jack Olding, Limited, who paid it into ' their banking account. They drew a cheque for the same amount in favour of Cooper Brothers, who paid the same amount to a woman nominated Jby Mr Best, a Mrs Riches. She, it was alleged paid £3250 to Mr Lawrence, of Lawrence, Hahn and Best, and the balance of £1250 to Mr Best. There was not a word of truth in these allegations, he added. Commission a Fabrication Giving evidence, Mr Chaplin said that the allegation of the £4500 commission was a fabrication and that he had brought an action against the Leys for the payment of £16,000. They pleaded the alleged bribe as an answer. Mr Dormer, in evidence, denied that he had told Mr Keith Ley that a receipt was signed by Best in his presence, and Mr Best, who was in the witness box for less than a minute, said that he had not received a penny from Mr Chaplin. The signature on the receipt that had been produced was not his. Yet Mr Keith Ley, giving evidence, said that Mr Dormer had shown him a piece of paper which he described as a receipt signed by Mr Best. Australian Case Recalled. In cross-examination, Mr Thomas , John Ley agreed that in 1938 he was; sued in Australia for alleged fraudu-I lent misrepresentation regarding a | company called Prickly Pear Poisons. The action was settled. Charges of fraud were not withdrawn in open Court, he said, but the acceptance of his assurance that he had no intention to defraud was a condition precedent to the settlement. He left Australia three months afterward, but not under the cloud of scandals arising out of the company. Asked by counsel whether he had any doubt that Mr Best’s signature; was a forgery, Mr John Thomas Ley said: “No doubt, after hearing the evidence.” The jury gave judgment for Mr Chaplin, and awarded £lO,OOO dam-1 ages against John Thomas Ley, £2OOOl against Mr Keith Ley, and Mr I Best was given agreed judgment for £5OOO damages against Mr Keith Ley for slander.

Summing up, Mr Justice Hilbery had said: “It cannot be too loudly proclaimed that it is now conceded that a false charge has been made against Mr Chaplin and Mr Best, and that neither of them was guilty of the criminal act of dishonesty imputed to them.”