SLANDER ACTION

Hokitika Guardian, 20 September 1937, Page 1

SLANDER ACTION

“A JEHOVAH WITNESS” SYDNEY, August 19. A slander action, brought by one of “Jehovah’s Witnesses’ against a police inspector, was mentioned before Mr Acting-Justice Owen in Chambers. The defendant, Inspector James Patrick Soorv, applied to have the case heard at Taimvortli. The plaintiff, Jeffrey Ludlow Norman, a Narrabri farmer, opposed the application on the ground that it was a case of public importance, involving “freedom of conscience in Christian worship.” Newman alleged that he had been slandered and assaulted while making a speech at Tamworth on October 26. “BIBLICAL AUTHORITY” Newman’s solicitor, Mr F. Heyes, hi an affidavit, said that his client was ‘‘a member of a large body of people who call themselves “Jehovah’s Witnesses’’ “These people,” he added, “believe themselves commissioned by biblical authority to preach the Gospel of God’s Kingdom, according to the Scriptures, meaning thereby the IHolv Bible.” Mr Hayes also said that until recently this had been done by the broadcast- of records over' 2TM, Tamworth. This had been discontinued because on the representations of advisers, the station had refused to broadcast unless they censored the addresses. Tn view of tliis, Mr Heyes said that in fits own and his client’s opinion, an unprejudiced trial could not be held at. Tamworth. . INSPECTOR’S DENTAL Inspector Socry, in his defence, denied the slander and assault, and also, by permission of the Court yesterday, pleaded not guilty by Statute. It was said that ho would call 20 Tamworth witnesses. Two of these were Anglican clergymen and if the case was heard in Sydney, inconvenience would be caused to their flock. The judge directed that the case should bo heard at Tamworth.