ALLEGED SLANDER.

Northern Advocate, 15 May 1918, Page 2

ALLEGED SLANDER.

STOREKEEPERS v. BAKER,

• A FINE OF £30 IMPOSED.

A statement made with regard to the financial stability of a firm led ?°,A c ?r al ?f tion at Kawakawa upon which Mr E. W. Bur'tdn, <S.M., was called to give judgment. The case was heard upon April 15 and the reserved decision given on May <8 It appears that a baker named Thomas Brown, who had been supplying bread to Messrs Smith Bros., at the Waipuna sawmill, stated to another baker named Thompson, of Hikurangi, who had taken up his custom with the firm: "I hear you are supplying Smith Bros, at Waipuna with •!? I I, have been supplying them with bread and had to'knock off as they owed me over £80 and if I don't get the money by the end of the month I will summons them. Look out and don't let them run longer than one week." Mr Miller appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr Steadman for the defendant. The evidence adduced was of a conflicting nature, the defendant denying the use of the words alleged m the amended statement. For the defence Mr Steadman held that the words were not defamatory of the plaintiff's business, that it was a privileged communication, that the court could not grant an amendment of the words contained in the alleged slander and that plaintiffs had - not suffered damage by loss of cus-' torn. .--" In his reserved judgment Mr Burton held that the words were defamatory to the plaintiffs in their trade as storekeepers; that the words were used on an occasion not privileged; that the statement contained in the words was not true to the knowledges of the defendant, which fact would! take away the privilege if it existed. As to the amendment of the statement of claim, he held that the court could permit the amendment for the purpose of deciding what was the real controversy between the parties and as to whether the real words were used or not. The court therefore found that there was no pr£yilege, or that if privilege existed it' had been abused and that general damages could be granted notwithstanding that such damages had not been proved. A fine of £30 and > costs was therefore imposed.