CIVIL CLAIM

Manawatu Standard, Volume LV, Issue 303, 20 November 1935, Page 10

CIVIL CLAIM

JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT.

A case of alleged slander was heard before Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, wherein Eric Israel Samuels, drover, of Ashhurst, proceeded against Edmund Richard Morris, butcher, of Ashhurst, claiming £ls damages. Mr A. M. Ongley appeared for plaintiff and Mr J. Si. Gordon for defendant. Plaintiff, in evidence, said that in August last he had purchased a sheep at the Feilding sale, but on delivery it had become mixed up with some of defendant’s. He had removed it from defendant’s paddock with defendant’s consent. Later defendant had accused him of taking an animal that did not belong to him. Witness had denied the charge. However, defendant had not Seen satisfied and had demanded to see the skin. In the presence of Constable fischer he had taken the skin along to lefemlant, whereupon defendant had dated that he did not want to see it as he had found the missing sheep in his own paddock.' Witness had asked defendant to apologise in writing, but an apology had not been forthcoming. The way defendant had acted made it aptpear as though defendant had accused him of stealing the sheep. Mrs Samuels, in evidence, recalled the visit of defendant in connection with the missing animal. He would take no explanation and insisted that plaintiff had taken the animal. She had drawn the inference that defendant was accusing her husband of stealing it. Edward Claude Gaisford, lorry driver, of Ashhurst, said that when he took 23 sheep that defendant had bought and the one plaintiff had bought at Feilding to Ashhurst, he put them all in a holding paddock together. Next morning defendant rang up saying one was missing and that either witness, Samuels or Currie Bros, (who owned the lorry) had it. He told Morris not to talk like that because, by his attitude, witness got the impression that Morris was accusing one of the three mentioned as having stolen it.

Constable Fischer stated that on receiving a complaint by Morris he interviewed Samuels. The complaint was one of theft. However, Samuels later produced the skin and Morris then stated that he had found the animal he had reported as stolen. Counsel for defendant contended that Morris was quite entitled to make the enquiries lie had made to protect his own private interests. Defendant was free from any motives so long as he had acted honestly. If defendant was found guilty of an offence no person would be able to make complaints. There- could be no accusation of theft in the words which formed the basis of the claim.

Defendant gave evidence that he had given plaintiff, permission to leave his one sheep in the paddock where the lorry driver had put it and further permission that it could be killed there and taken away dead. There was no permission given plaintiff to take the animal away. When it was reported to him that one sheep was missing from his 23, lie went and saw Samuels about it but at no stage had he accused plaintiff of stealing the animal. All he asked Samuels to do was to jiroduce the skin.

After hearing submissions by counsel, the Magistrate entered judgment for defendant, each party to pay his own costs.