£1000 Damages Claimed from A.M.P Society

Manawatu Times, Volume 63, Issue 40, 17 February 1938, Page 7

£IOOO Damages Claimed from A.M.P Society

Riva Company’s Action for Slander “IHE POLICY IS NO GOOD.” Per Press AssociationINVERCARGILL, Last Night. In the Supreme Court to-day before Mr. Justice Kennedy, the Australian Provincial Assurance Association; Limited, claimed £IOOO damages from the Australian Mutual Provident Society for alleged slander. Mr. H. F. O’Leary, K.C., of Wellington, and Mr. G. J. Reed appeared for plaintiff company, and Mr. G. G. Watson and Mr. H. J. James, both of Wellington, appeared for defendant company. In the statement of claim plaintiffs set out that in October, 1336, at Otautau, William. David Cowie and Alexius Hugh Ryder, agents of the dcfendan t company, falsely and maliciously spoke and published of the plaintiff company to Herbert Duff Collie, of Otautau, farmer, the following defamatory words: “The policy is no good— I would rather take a new policy in the A.M.P., because in a few years the A.M.P. policy would be worth more than the A.P.A. one. It is a dud company. ’ ’ It was alleged that the words were spoken to Collie on the roadway outsido a gate leading to his property at Otautau. The policy referred to was a policy for £SOU, which had been taken out by Collie with plaintiff company about February, 1932. The statement further set out that on Fe bruary 14, 1937, at Otautau, Ryder falsely and maliciously spoke and published of plaintiff to Herbert Duff Collie and John Steven Collie the following defamatory words: “It is a dud company. I would not have your policy if I got it for nothing —better to drop the premium you have paid and get a policy.in the A.M.P.” In opening the case for plaintiff, Mr. O’Leary said the words were spoken by Cowie and Ryder as servants of defendant company, and the company was responsible for them. The action was not brought with the sole purpose of getting damages. Had the A.M.P. done anythiQg to put the matter riglA, there would have been no case, but the only redressi plaintiff company had was to bring an action for damages. Counsel contended that words alleged to have been used by Cowie and Ryder were understood to mean that plaintiff company was unsound financially and conducted its business in an improper and inefficient manner, and policies issued by it were negligible or no benefit to the holders. Plaintiff, therefore, claimed £IOOO damages. The evidence was not completed when the Court adjourned to-day.