£250 Damages for A.P.A.

Manawatu Times, Volume 63, Issue 42, 19 February 1938, Page 2

£250 Damages for A.P.A.

Successful Slander Suit Against AMP. ACTION AT INVERCARGILL Per Press Association. INVERCARGILL, Last Night. A verdict for plaintiff, with £250 damages and costs according to scale, was returned by the jury In the Supreme Court to-day in the action for slander brought by the Australian Provinvial Assurance Association, Limited (A.P.A.) against the Australian Mutual Provident Society (A.M.P.). Mr. Justice Kennedy presided. Mr. H. F. O'Leary, K.C., with him Mr. H. J. James, both of Wellington, represented plaintiff, and defendant was represented by Mr. G. G. Watson, of Wellington.

In addressing the jury, Mr. Watson said that in this case plaintiff had asked the jury to give £IOOO damages, and Mr. G. R. B. Smith, of Sydney, general manager of the A.P.A., had admitted that his firm did not waut damages, but something to re-establish its reputation. Even if this were a case where slander were proved, it was, he submitted a case in which not a farthing's damage was done. These incidents were not known to anyone but the A.P.A. and Collie until the A.P.A. forced them to the notice of the public. One matter that always affected damages was whether defendant was given a reasonable apology, and he suggested that the apology sought was one of the most preposterous forms of apology that ever emanated from a lawyer's office and was calculated to compel litigation. It was advertisement the A.P.A. sought from tho A.M.P. The question at issue was: Did defendant at the time and place alleged use the words complained of! The onlyother issue was, if the words were used, did not they have the special meaning plaintiff alleged they had and were .they defamatory! i He had drawn attention to the absolute conflict and hopeless contradiction in the documents in the claim. He put it to the jury that the Collies were decent, respectable, hard-working and honourable farmers, and he did not suggest that .they were in any way dishonest, but he did suggest that, honest as they were, their evidence was ©onfused and muddled, due •to lack of memory by Collie, senior, and inexperience by Collie, junior, and could not be accepted.

Mr. O'Leary, addressing the jury, claimed that counsel for defence had made use of the useful fish and red herring. Shoals of red herrings had crossed the path of a simple issue. If they had established that the words had been used, the A.M.P. Society had, by the manner of its defence, aggravated one-hundred-fold the wrong it had done to the A.P.A.

“We brought this action to vindicate our own good name,” counsel said, ‘ * and to assiet our agents, wha have to combat these men and protect our policy-holders. The A.M.P. does not stop with an attack on any company with the suggestion of advertising when it is the advertiser itself, but it attacks a witness by insinuation.” His Honour's summing up, which began at 12.35, was interrupted by tha 1 o'clock adjournment. On resuming at 2.15, his Honour continued his address until 3.20, when the jury retired to consider the verdict. The jury returned at 4.50 p.m.