SLANDER CASE APPEAL

Hawera Star, Volume LIV, 13 April 1934, Page 4

SLANDER CASE APPEAL

DAMAGES AWARD INCREASED (By Tel<*?rapD—TVesa AsßOCtatlon.) WELLINGTON, April, 12. The 'Court of .Appeal to-day. delivered reserved judgment allowing the appeal of Reginald 'Charles ißoddie against James Dickson ISievwright, of Wellington', retired journalist. . The appeal arose out of an action for slander brought by the appellant Boddie against the respondent 'Sievwright and heard before Mr Justice Ostler last June. The appellant then made five allegations of slander, which fell into four groups. The first group 'comprised allegations that appellant had “ taken' down ’ ’ a man called ILockyer, the respondent and a certain syndicate; the second that appellant had failed to account for certain moneys received by him on behalf of this syndicate; the third that, he was dishonest, that the police were • after him and that he ought to be in gaol; the fourth that he had been guilty of misrepresentation as a salesman.

Respondent first, denied the slanders alleged. He then pleaded they were not defamatory or had been spoken on a privileged occasion; jjn.d lastly alleged justification. This last plea was later abandoned as to one of.'the. allegations. Mr Justice Ostler held that three out of the Jive-slanders had been-establish-ed wholly or in part, but awarded in respeet of these only the sum of one farthing each. He refused to allow costs to.''Boddie. 7

(Mr Justice Herdman expressed the opinion that this was a case in which more than contemptuous damages should have been awarded in the court below-. Tic agreed that, damages and costs should be fixed as mentioned by Mr Justice Kennedy, who in a long written judgment fixed the damages at £l6O, with costs in the Supremo Court according to scale oil that amount, with disbursements, less costs to respondent, who succeeded in the lower court on the first cause of action and several parts of the other causes of action, and who should have costs of the trial in the 'Supreme Court as on a claim for £750. The appellant was also allowed £25 solicitor’s expenses in connection with his appeal.