APPEAL COURT

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXIV, Issue 77, 13 March 1934, Page 6

APPEAL COURT

Boddie-Sievwright Case SEQUEL TO SLANDER ACTION lUy Teleirraph Press Association.) WELLINGTON, March 12. The Court of Appeal to-day commenced the hearing of a case on appeal of Reginald Charles Boddie ■against James Dickson Sievwright, of Wellington, retired journalist. The appeal arises out of an action for slander brought by the appellant Boddie against the respondent Sievwright and heard before Mr. Justice Ostler in June last. The appellant made five allegations of slander, which fell into four groups. The first group comprised allegations that the appellant had “taken down” a man called Lockyer, the respondent and a certain syndicate; second, that the appellant had failed to account for certain moneys received by him on behalf of this syndicate; third, that lie was crooked and dishonest, that the police were after him, and that he ought to bo in gaol; and, fourth, that he had been guilty of misrepresentation as a salesman. The respondent first denied the slanders alleged and then pleaded that they were not defamatory or had been spoken on a privileged occasion, and, lastly, alleged justification. This last plea was later abandoned as to one of the allegations. Mp. Justice Ostler held that three out of the five slanders had been estab lished wholly or in part, but awarded m respect of these only the sum of oue farthing ench. He refused to allow costs to Boddie. Mr. C. 11. Weston, K.C., who, with Mr. Evans-Scott, is appearing for the appellant, said that the broad grounds of the appeal were (a) allegations of slander held not to be established were in fact established at the trial; (b) in respect of those two allegations justi fleation was not established by Sievwright; (c) the case was not one for contemptuous damages as awarded by Mr. Justice Ostler, and that the principle adopted by that Judge in fixing damages, a principle based on conduct and not on reputation, was not allowed by law; (d) the,Court below did not give attention to evidence of respondent’s conduct, which entitled appellant to damages. Mr. Weston asked the Court to fix damages and allow costs to the appcl hint. He also dealt at some length with the facts which had been before the Court below. He later applied for leave to adduce further evidence relating to the facts which had occurred s ; nce the action was heard, and re..ting to the activities of the appellant in Christchurch in connection with his formulae. Mr. O’Leary, for the respondent, objected to evidence being given, and said that, in any event, matters intended to be proved thereby were not contested. The Court adjourned until to-morrow.