SLANDER CLAIM FAILS

Hawera Star, Volume L, 19 February 1931, Page 9

SLANDER CLAIM FAILS

PLAINTIFF NON=SUITED EVIDENCE POE DEFENCE DENIAL OF ALLEGATIONS. The action against J. R. Corrigan by Ida. Fanny Taylor, who claimed tIU damages for alleged assault and slander, was concluded in the Hawera Magistrate’s Court this afternoon, plaintiff being non-suited. Questioned by Mr. Smart, plaintiff’s daughter said that she and her mother had talked together over the incidents, but she knew that -she was on oath. Horace E. Robinson, accountant and secretary to defendant, said that Mrs. Taylor had been a source of annoyance to him as well as to Mr. Corrigan.i AY hen Mrs. Tailor had called on the day of tne alleged assault she had been informed that Mr. Corrigan was expected at the office, and when he had arrived Mrs. Taylor had asked him for her share of the milk bonus. Mr. Corrigan had had no knowledge of a bonus being due. AATien the amount was ascertained Mrs. Taylor had been given a cheque for her share. Airs. Taylor had been asked for a receipt, but had refused to .sign one. Corrigan had informed her that if she did not sign the receipt she would not get the money. by' this time Airs. Taylor, judging by her face, had been working herself up into a frenzy. She had said: “You have been most unfair to us and now you refuse to pay us our money. You have done us out of £250 insurance money; you received £s')<')' from the insurance company and only paid us £250.” AVitness had told Mrs. Taylor that such a statement was wrong, as she had been paid the whole of the money received from the insurance company. Airs. Taylor had also said that Corrigan had kicked them off the farm had said that they were not workers, and had refused to give them a reference. Air. Corrigan had also showed his annoyance and said that they (the Taylors) were liars. He had asked them how could they expect a reference when through their neglect he expected to lose £IOOO this season. Defendant had then given definite instructions to witness not to pay the cheque until a receipt was received. After Air. Corrigan had gone Airs. Taylor had said that she intended to see Mr. L. A. Taylor, who would make Corrigan pay for his abuse. Later the receipt was altered at Airs. Taylor’s request and she received a cheque. By this time Airs. Taylor was very agitated and was crying, but left the office immediately after having been paid. “1 was the only one present who was not' hot under the collar and 1 should know what happened,” said witness in reply to questioning by Air. Smart.

“I should hope so,” observed the magistrate. Proceeding, witness denied that defendant had pushed Airs. Taylor or tried to prevent her leaving. He also had not said to Airs. Taylor that he frequently had to put up with such happenings. On the day in question the office door was closed when Airs. Taylor made her visit, and it was always closed between 1 and 2 p.m. Questioned by the magistrate, witness said that the insurance company had paid out £250 as full settlement for the loss of the eye. This concluded plaintiff’s case. Air. Smart contended that the case was a very paltry cue and that the charges were without foundation. Defendant denied both the slander and the assault and counsel considered that there was no case to answer. “There is a case to answer, but it is limping badly,” said the magistrate.

Defendant, in liis version of Ihe incidents, corroborated in detail the evidence given by the witness Robinson, and denied both the slander and the assault alleged. The magistrate said it was clear from the amount claimed that plaintiff had not taken the alleged assault and slander very seriously. Plaintiff had given her evidence as to certain events but had called a witness (Robinson) who had given entirely contradictory evidence, and her case had been badly lamed by that witness. There were suspicions that that witness had not told all he knew. It was a fact, however, that the evidence tendered by that witness had been corroborated by that given by defendant. Even if the ease had been proved it was doubtful if there would have been grounds for slander. Judgment was then given as stated, defendant being allowed £1 Is solicitor’s fee.