Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

ALLEGED SLANDER

AIATHESON v. SCHN EIDER AI AN

By Telograpli—Press Association)

WELLINGTON, May 11

The case in which lan Meikle John Alatheson, clothing manufacturer, claimed £SOO damages for alleged slander from Henry Sclineiderman, merchant, both of Wellington, was continued before Air Justice MacGregor and a jury in the Supreme Court. Air G. G. Watson and Air Wilson appeared for plaintiff, and Air H. F. O’Leary for tlie defendant.

Mr O’Leary, on behalf of defendant, contended that the alleged slander uttered was upon occasions of privilege, and that it was necessary for the plaintiff to prove malice, but there was no evidence of malice to go to a. jury..

Ah- Watson submitted that the second and third groups of words were not privileged, though the first group was. He submitted that there was evidence or malice.

His Honour reserved the question of a nonsuit.

Evidence oil behalf of-Sclineiderman was given by Joseph Benjamin, public accountant, who was engaged by Sclmeiderinan to investigate accounts ns between defendant and Alatheson and Cawley. He investigated the stock sheets, and, as an accountant, he was unable to reconcile certain figures and items, and lie referred them to Schiieidei-mivn, ‘ who caljed Alatheson As far as witness could recollect, Alathosoii gave a very vague reply. Witness said Alatheson refused to hand over the keys of the office when requested by Sclineiderman, who told Alatheson that if he did not hand them over, it might be a matter for the police. To Air Watson: “It was apparent to liim that the alterations on the stodk sheets represented arithmetical or calculating mistakes. There was no .suggestion of dishonesty made by defendant. David Nicholson, cutting manager for defendant, said that he had not been dismissed, as had been alleged. He had not been away from work for n day. An item on the stock sheet,“Paris IIII,” .should have read “ill! yards from Paris.” After evidence i:n relation to- a check on the stock sheets had been given by Wiliam O’Connor, an employee of defendant,- Air O’Leary closed lis ease, and counsel addressed the jury. AIATHESON WINS'* THE CASE. WELLINGTON, May 12. In the Supreme Court yesterday, before' ! Air Justice MacGregor, lan Ateikle John Alatheson, manufacturer, of .Wellington, was awarded £SOO dai>. ages from Henry Sclineiderman, merchant'; also of AVollington, for slander. The jury were away a little over two hours. ' - Counsel wi- dofenctant mentioned the likelihood of an appeal being made.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HOG19290513.2.63

Bibliographic details

Hokitika Guardian, 13 May 1929, Page 6

Word Count
401

ALLEGED SLANDER Hokitika Guardian, 13 May 1929, Page 6

ALLEGED SLANDER Hokitika Guardian, 13 May 1929, Page 6

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert