£5O DAMAGES AWARDED IN LIBEL SUIT

Manawatu Times, Volume LIV, Issue 6622, 7 August 1931, Page 2

£SO DAMAGES AWARDED IN LIBEL SUIT

Court Finds Letter To County Council Written in Malice

The case in which Mrs Florence Margaret Baker, clerk of the Dnnnevirko County Council, sued Osgood and Drury, motor cyclo importers, and Henry Stanley Osgood, a director, of the firm, of Dannevirke, claiming £SOO damages for alleged libel, was concluded in the Palmerston North Supreme Court yesterday before the Hon. Mr. Justice Reed. Judgment was given for plaintiff for £SO, with costs on the lowest scale.

F. A. N. North, motor mechanic, of Dannevirke, in evidence said he was engaged on an aeroplane in the garage of Osgool and Drury. He recalled the visits of Phillips to the garage asking for information regarding the motorcycle. The ranger said he could get nothing to go on from tho County Council office whereupon Osgood rang up Mrs. Baker. Defendant then told Phillips that the council had apparently got a machine and Phillips did not say anything in reply to this information.

His Honour: I don’t think this has really anything to do with it. It doesn’t affect Sirs. Baker at all. Apparently Phillips was pulling wool over the eyes of defendant. The ranger evidently did not like going past Osgood in the matter and defendant attributed what had transpired to plaintiff. Witness, in answer to further questions, said Osgood showed a letter to Phillips who took exception to one passage which defendant said he would alter.

The defence concluded with evidence sy Evelyn K. Osgood, a g to tho typing of the letter which had caused all tho trouble. Counsel addressed the Court, Mr Gibbard agreeing that defendant perhaps had not been judicious, but that did not make him liable. Osgood had acted under an erroneous impression created by the ranger; he thought he had suffered an injustice and felt keenly about it. A man of few words might have concealed his feelings better, but unfortunately defendant was not a man of few words. Allowance had to be made for his feelings. It was not because strong language was used that made the letter libelous; it was a question of whether malice was intended. Defendant was laying a complaint about a public official and was allowed to go further than he could with a private individual. Failure to apologise was not evidence of malice. His Honour: I think the letter libelous. It has been proved it was written maliciously, but it is not a case for heavy damages. His Honour also held that the epistle was written by defendant in the course of his employment by the company. The statements were entirely untrue as the defendant had admitted from the witness box. The letter was written in a spirit of revenge for. wrong inflicted upon him. Howover, a most cursory inquiry by defendant would have shown that plaintiff was not responsible. He was given the opportunity of apologising but again he took no trouble to inquire. Under the circumstances, plaintiff had been forced into Court to clear her character. The libel, however, had not been very wide-spread, and those who had heard it had exhonorated plaintiff. Judgment was given for plaintiff for £SO against the company.