DEFENDANT IN DANNEVIRKE LIBEL SUIT WITHDRAWS STATEMENTS

Manawatu Times, Volume LIV, Issue 6621, 6 August 1931, Page 8

DEFENDANT IN DANNEVIRKE LIBEL SUIT WITHDRAWS STATEMENTS

Says He Was Misled

County Clerk Sues For £SOO Damages

m.i action of interest to Southern La wire's Bay occupied the attention of I*lo Supreme Court in Balmerston i<urth yesterday when Florence .Margaret Bauer, clerk of the Dannevirke county (Jouncil, sued Osgood and Drury, Ltd., and Henry Stanley Osgood, director of the lirm,' for £SOO damages in respect of alleged libel. 'f'ko action arose out or the receipt of a letter written by defendants pel H. S. Osgood (as a director) to the chairman of the Dannevirke County Council, concerning the purchase of a motor-cycle for the County ranger. Defendants had tendered but had not been successful in getting tho business. The letter concluded a s follows: “Why such glaring falsehoods should be adopted by your clerk is beyond my comprehension and what ulterior m<y tive she had in adopting these tactics certainly calls for an inquiry into tho administration of your council. the rumours, true or otherwise, that are being disseminated in this town and district concerning the- county affairs evidently must have a certain glimmer of truth connected with same, if tho foregoing incident is any criterion of County administration and which is also bringing the country councillors into disrepute in this district. I sincerely regret having to bring this matter before your notice but if the local bodies and various institutions in this country are allowed to have their affairs prostituted by their servants, which has been exceedingly frequent of late years, then I consider we are all facing tho future with serious alarm; where our integrity and honesty of purpose are going to be seriously challenged. To avoid any serious disturbances in our midst, we should, as British subjects, desire to see fair play and above board, and incidentally put our house in order before worse complications should arise. Trusting you will be able to fathom this uncalled for method of County Council business and the Teason therefor.— Thanking you in anticipation, yours faithfully, Osgood and Drury, Ltd. (H. Stanley Osgood, director). “P.S.: I have been informed that the motor-cycle has been purchased in Balmerston North for £BS whereas my firm quoted a similar machine for £7O. Where are the brains and logic of your clerk when stupid acts such a s this are done? What is the apparently ulterior motive?” The plaintiff set out that she understood the words to mean: — (1) That she improperly, discreditably, unintelligently and with ulterior motive, carried out her duties to the council in respect of the purchase of the motor-cycle. (2) Told falsehoods to the second named defendant. (3) Endeavoured to prevent the purchase of the cycle from defendant company. (4) Desired a motor-cycle to be purchased elsewhere. . (5) Was actuated by ulterior and corrupt motives in’ so acting. _ (6) Obtained or desired to obtain a secret commission from the vendor. Plaintiff contended that she had been seriously injured in her credit, reputation and office as county clerk and had been held up to ridicule and contempt. _ Plaintiff In Witness Box. Plaintiff, in evidence, said she had been clerk of the Dannevirke County Council since December, 1918. In January last the council appointed a new county ranger, a Mr. A. C. Phillips, who subsequently wrote asking the council to purchase a motor-cycle for him, repayment to be made m montnly instalments. The council agreed and witness telegraphed the New Zealand agents of a certain make of cycle in Christchurch, for quotes for a 3 to 4 h.p. machine. Phillips also suggested getting a quote from Midland Motors, Palmerston North, for a similar machine which was secured, as also was a quote from Osgood and Drury, Dannevirke agents of the machine desired. Phillips considered defendants were not quoting the latest model, and this was found to be correct, so they were asked to quote for tho latest model. The ranger was anxious to secure the Midland Motors machine, but witness thought it would be fairer to give defendants a chance to compete with a quotation for the latest model. Defendants replied, but Phillips was again dissatisfied. Witness thereupon rang the county chairman who gave hig consent to the ordering of a mm chine from Midland Motors. She telephoned the vendors and Phillips spoke over the wire to them in respect of delivery. Plaintiff added that she had no personal interest in the purchase nor was there any hint of a concession nor commission from Midland Motors —she didn't expect any. A letter marked confidential came to the county office for the chairman who handed it to her to read. The engineer was present. The letter was then put into the chairman's drawer and was later placed before a meeting of the council. She.read it out to the council and was instructed to write for an apology. She had kept nothing back from Phillips and so was not conscious of any “glaring falsehoods” nor “ulterior motives.” The machine bought from Midland Motors was dearer than Osgood’s quote, but she knew now that whereas the machine bought was a 4.98 c.e. (3i h. 0.), defendant’s was only a 3.48 c.c. (2* h.p.). To Mr. Gibbard (defendant’s counsel) : The council would not go outside the district if it could get what it required inside. The letter seemed to be a personal attack on her. His Honour: Did the paper s publish the letter?

He added that it was ho who had pressed for the purekaso of tho cycle from midland Motors as he wanted the machine urgently. Defendants had said it would take them a week to import a machine and further time to assemble it. Witness wanted to get on the road at once and calculated that he could make more out of commissions on dog collars in tho time ho would have to wait for defendant’s machine, than the extra cost of that offered by Midland Motors. He saw defendants after the machine was delivered from Palmerston North in order to convince H. S. Osgood that he had secured a motor-cycle which Osgood had said would take six months to get. The latter informed witness he was going to send a letter into the council and he read it out. There was a lot in it about shopping in one’s own town and about the person who was riding the bike not knowing anything about it. The letter ended with the words to tho effect that “you can always place a thief, but you can’t trust a liar, ’•’ or vice-versa. Osgood declared it wasn’t a fair thing tho council not dealing in its own town. Witness informed defendant that the letter was ( i bit stiff* Counsel: What did he say to that? Witness: I don’t Temember much about it, but he said something about Mrs. Baker’s work in the council. Mr. Lloyd: With whom was he annoyed—■with you? Witness: No, not with me—with Mrs. Baker. He said something about Mrs. Baker and the others being thero long enough. Counsel: What did you say? Witness: I couldn’t say anything. They were practically strangers to me. Counsel: What then? Witness: I had to attend a council meeting over the bike. Counsel: Did you hear a letter read? Witness: They read extracts about what I had said. Counsel: Wag it the letter Mr .Osgood had shown you? Witness: No.

Witness denied that he had told defendants that the machine they had in stock met with his approval “in every detail”—as a matter of fact it did not. At a subsequent date Osgood saw him as to what stand ho was taking in the case. Defendant declared that either he had been misinformed or misled.

In answer to Mr. Gibbard, witness admitted telling Osgood that he couldn’t s a y anything about the purchase of the bike although he did know something. Counsel: Why did you say that? Witness: It was not my business. Defendant could have got the information from the county office. Counsel: You admit you bluffed him. Witness: Yes. Counsel: He treated you fairly about your account with him? His Honour: What has that got to do with this?

Counsel: Only to show that someone was bluffing. Defendant thought it was the county clerk whereas it was this man. Witness: He tried to bluff me. He told me it would take six months to import the cycle I wanted, into New Zealand. Mr. Gibbard: You went to Mr. Osgood about the machine when you knew all the time it had been bought. Witness: I did. Witness Uses Discretion,

John Miller, a labourer, of Dannevirke, recalled Osgood discussing with him county affairs. In answer to a question from defendant, witness had replied that he was only a casual and would have to go off like tho rest. Osgood had replied that if Mrs. Baker’s and Harris’s wages were cut down by half, some of the men could be kept on. Osgood also said Mrs. Baker and Harris had put their foot into it this time; that he had put a letter into the council and Harry Frcderickson had read it. Counsel: What then?

Witness: He said, how does your brother stand with the chairman?—l said I didn’t know as I had not seen my brother for 12 months. Counsel: Your brother is a councillor. • Witness: Yes. Osgood said there was a lot of underhand, dirty work done in the county office by Mrs. Baker and Harris. Counsel: What did you say to that? Witness: I said I had known Mr. Harris ever since he had come to Dannevirkc and if ho couldn’t do a good turn he wouldn’t do a bad one. Osgood replied that I didn’t know him and added that if Mrs. Baker and Harris didn’t get tho sack this time, all the councillors wanted firing out and a new lot elected.

Counsel: Did you inform Harris or Mrs. Baker what you had been told? Witness: No. I got as far as the bottom step of the county office and my son told mo I had better not. Mr. Lloyd: Discretion Mr. Gibbard: Did Osgood tell you he had a grievance? —No. Counsel: At the time they cut the salaries the clerk and engineer had notice to leave ? Witness:: There was something like that. Counsel: Mr. Osgood says he didn t mention Mr. Harris’s name. He is a personal friend of his. Witness: He did. You’re sure you’re not mistaken? Witness: No. At the Council Meeting.

Alex. Galloway, sheep farmer, of Dannevirke, said ho was chairman of the Dannevirke County Council when it was decided to purchase a motorcycle for Phillips. He authorised Mrs. Baker to allow Phillips to get what bike he wanted. Defendants subsequently sent the letter containing the allegations against Mrs. Baker and it was discussed by tho council. The ranger gave an explanation and the council seemed satisfied. ' No Commission Mentioned. George Henry Adams, manager of Midland Motors, Palmerston North, challenged a statement in the quotation by Osgood that a 3.48 c.c. machine was 3i h.p. It wag only 2f h.p. and would not successfully pull a sidechair as was required by Phillips. Counsel; It was alleged in the letter

Witness: They said they would not. Counsel: Didn’t a judge about a year ago refer to the county affairs as crude? Witness: I had nothing to do with that—it was the engineering side. Counsel: The affairs of the council have had a good deal of publicity lately, haven’t they? Witness agreed. Re-examined by Mr. Lloyd (her counsel) plaintiff said she thought Osgod and Drury had received every consideration. Ranger Recalls Another Letter. Albert Chas. S. Phillips, Dannevirke County, ranger, told the Court of the steps taken to procure the motor-cycle, corroborating the evidence of plaintiff.

from Osgood that Mrs. Baker had some ulterior motive.

Witness: I don’t know anything about that.

Counsel: Did she ask for any commission or expect any?—No. Counsel: Osgood said, he could have sold the County Council the same model as you charged them £SS for, for £/0. Is that so? Witness: No. Ho has quoted for a different machino altogether. Boy Limbrick, head mechanic for Midland Motors, gave similar evidence and said ho could not conceivo of defendants being ignorant of tho fact that a 3.48 c.c. machino was according to R.A.C. rating only a 2| h.p. motorcycle. What Councillors Thought.

James Peters, sheep-farmer, of Dannevirko and a membor of the County Council, recalled the reading of Osgood’s letter at tho Council meeting. He understood thero was an insinuation of bribery or corruption on tho part of Mrs. Baker. Mr. Gibbard: When did you arrive at that conclusion? Witness: At the meeting. Counsel: Did you acquit her of the charges mado against her? Witness: Absolutely. Sidney Mitchell, another county councillor, said he had also been of opinion that the letter inferred Mrs. Baker had accepted a commission from an outside source. Mr. Gibbard: You didn't credit it, did you? Witness: No. Non-Suit Asked Tor. This concluded plaintiff’s case and Mr. Gibbard moved for a non-suit. The onus of proving malice, ho said, was on plaintiff and counsel submitted it had not been discharged. Tho letter was carefully sent and marked confidential. Mr. Gibbard quoted authority in support of “privilege,” pointing out that persons holding pubftc positions were more liable to have their actions criticised than were private individuals. His Honour held that there was evidence of malice and Mr. Gibbard proceeded to call evidence. Defence of Privilege.

The defence was a denial of the allegations, but if there had been a publication of the letter, it was a privileged occasion. It was also contended that defendants and the County Council had a common legitimate interest in tho subject matter and that the words were published bona fide and without malice. Tho statements were made in the conduct of their own affairs in a matter in which their own interest were concerned and were published bona fide and without malice to obtain redress for a grievance. For a further defence, defendants said that if the words were published, in so far as they consisted of statements of fact, they were true in substance and in fact and consisted of expressions of opinion in that they were fair comment made in good faith and without malice upon a matter of public interest. It was further contended that the words were not published within tho scope and ia tho course of his employment, by tho defendant company and that, it never authorised or ratified the publication of the words. Defendant in Witness Box Henry Stanley Osgood said it was he Who had advised Phillips to approach the council, in helping him obtain, a machine. Subsequently he had. received a telegram from the distributors m Christchurch, requesting him to quote the council. He then Tang the chairman (Mr. Galloway), asking him if ho would use his influence to give local preference Mr. Galloway replied that he would. Witness then rang the county clerk, who told him that a quote from his firm was expected. A prico of £75 was sent in, but a request cam.o for a quote for the latest model, which was also sent—£7o for a 348 c.c., or 348 h.p. They were told it would be some months before the 1931 models would be in. At a later date Phillips called, stating that he could get little information from the county clerk, and asked witness if ho knew if anything was being done about tho purchase of the machine. Witness replied that he could not help Phillips, but he rang up the county clerk, who said that, seeing Phillips was paying for the machine, he had the right to choose it; that witness need not bother further about the matter, as a cycle from another firm had been purchased. Phillips was present all the time and anpeared very surprised at the information. Witness said he subsequently asked Cr. Fredericksen if it was the policy of the council to purebaso locally, and had received the reply that it was, if the price was right. Defendant said he could get any model of machine procurable in New Zealand. As regards the letter, the one shown to Phillips was exactly the same as the County Council had received,, with the exception that “no information” had been altered to “very meagre information.” He was really misled by the fact of Phillips coming to his premises straight from the county clerk and stating that he could get very little information from her. It led witness to believe that his firm was being , hoodwinked and was not receiving fair and above-board treatment. Phillips had made no comment, except to refer to the matter of “no information,” which was altered as already described. Counsel: What was your motivo in writing the letter? Witness: I thought my firm wasn’t getting a square deal. Counsel: It had nothing to do with Mr. Harris? Witness: As far as I am concerned, his name was never mentioned. The purport was to bring the matter before the council. To Mr. Lloyd: The postscript was not on the letter when he showed it to Phillips. Counsel: So tho letter was rather milder at first? Witness: I think the whole tone of the letter is mild. Counsel: Do you ever write a strong letter? You are more or less always writing letters, aren’t you? You go pretty often into print. Defendant did not know that this was so. Defendant denied that he had tried to unload an old machino on to the council. It had landed in Dannevirke 12 months ago last March. Counsel: You were very annoyed when you wrote that letter, weren’t you?—No. Counsel: Didn’t Phillips advise you not to send it?—He did not. Counsel: Did you show it to anyone else? Defendant: To Mr. Fredericksen. His Honour: Was it the machine you had standing in your window that you were quoting as one of the latest models?—Yes. Counsel: And thore have been several models since? Witness: There may be one or two about New Zealand. Counsel: What did you mean by “ulterior motive?” Defendant: There was no suggestion of her trying to secure a secret commission. Counsel: Where were the “glaring falsehoods”?

Witness: Tho ranger came to mo foi information.

Counsel: How does that make it her falsehoods? Witness: Apparently plaintiff had all tho particulars Phillips wanted. 1 did not doubt the integrity of the county clerk, but resented tho methods sho adopted over the motor cycle. Counsel: What is your explanation ot “local body affairs being prostituted”? Witness: It was not a direct accusation against her, but rather that the County Council should see that nothing should happen as has happened in the past. You usrely have read of postmasters and others going to gaol. It will certainly be an advantage to me as a citizen to seo our local body administration conducted in as strict a manne. as possible. I have nothing to gain by doing Mrs. Baker an injury. His Honour: You say tho county clerk has been guilty of “glaring falsehoods” and “ulterior motives.” Dc you adhere to those statements? Defendant: No, sir. On tho evidence given by Phillips I am convinced that tho county rangor misled me. _ His Honour: Then you withdraw those statements? , Defendant: Yes, sir. His Honour: Did you make any inquiry to see what reception your letter had had from the council? Defendant did not answer, but seemed to be considering. His Honour: Surely you did. You were rather proud of it at one time, weren’t you? Defendant: No; I didn’t. His Honour: You never took the slightest trouble to find out what the council did? You didn’t make inquiries from any of tho councillors? Defendant: No.

His Honour: It. came as a surprise to you to learn that the ranger had been before tho council and had given an explanation? Defendant: I never heard it officially. His Honour: I’m not asking you about it “officially.” Did you not hear it? Defendant: No. His Honour; You were asked to apologise, and vou didn’t do anything. Defendant admitted that he had done nothing. His Honour: Did you make any inquiries then? Defendant: No. I thought what I had done had been honest and truthful. His Honour: You made serious statements, and when asked to apologise and withdraw, you made no inquiries as to whether you' could substantiate them?

Witness: No. In answer to Mr. Lloyd, defendant said he never mentioned Harris or Mrs. Baker to Miller. Ho considered that statement was a “frame-up.” “1 swear that with tho Bible in my hand, ’ added defendant, holding up tho Court Bible. Counsel: Didn’t Mr. Fredericksen advise you not to send tho letter in? No At this stage (6 p.m.) the Court adjourned, after seven hours’ sitting, until 10 o’clock this morning.