ALLEGED DEFAMATION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LI, Issue 15684, 11 August 1914, Page 5

ALLEGED DEFAMATION.

ROAD BOARD INCIDENT.

CHAIRMAN AWARDED £50.

The sum of £501, claimed as damages for alleged defamation, was involved m an action brought before His Honor Mr. Justice 'Cooper at tho Supreme Court yesterday. Plaintiff was James Ernest West, chairman of the Pukokohe West Road Board (Mr. R. McVeagh), and defendant was Charles Shipherd, a settler, of Pukekoho (Mr. J. R. Reed, K.C., with him Mr. W. Endean), the allegation being that, at a meeting of the Pukekohe West Road Board in March last, the defendant uttered_ words meaning, in effect, that tho plaintiff had sworn falsely when giving evidence before a commission in 1906. Mr. McVeagh, in opening the case, stated that a meeting of the Pukekoho West Road Board, at which plaintiff was chairman, was held on March 12 last. Defendant was present at tho mfeeting, and, on being asked what his business was, addressed those present generally upon the procedure of tho board, likening it to an entertainment. Then he referred to gome royalties which he said were due to him in connection with stone taken by one of the board's contractors from his property. In tho course of the discussion Shipherd appeared to have taken exception to a. statement of tho chairman of tho meeting that tho stone should have been measured up before it left the quarry on defendant property. Defendant said, in effect, that that was not the first time West had made an incorrect statement. Then it was that Shipherd littered the Avoids complained of, saving, as he addressed the chairman. " Why, you swore lies in the courthouse down here," nodding his head in such a way as to indicate the Pukekohe Courthouse. To understand the defendant's remarks it would bo necessary to unearth a piece of ancient history. In 1906, at which time West was chairman of the board, a proposal had been made that a road should be taken through Shipherd's property, and as Shipherd opposed the scheme tie Government set up a commission to hear evidence on the matter. West and others gave evidence on oath, and there was obvious connection between that'fact and Shipherd's utterance at the board's meeting orf March 12 last. The defendant had been given an opportunity to apologise, but had not taken advantage of the offer. Several witnesses, who gave evidence on tho lines of Mr. McVeagh's remarks, were called. They agreed that, in effect, defendant made the statement attributed to him.

Mr. Reed called no evidence for the defence. In addressing the jury ho .said ' that Shiphcrd had not meant to say that West had been guilty, of perjury. All ho had wished to convey was that West's evidence in connection with the proposed road given in two nlace.s, had been inconsistent. He asked the jury to award merely nominal damages. His Honor, in summing up, remarked that the words were capable of a defamatory meaning, but whether they boro such a meaning in the present instance Was for the jury to decide. Tho jury returned a verdict for tho plaintiff, who was awarded £50 damages.