LIBEL ACTION FAILS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19806, 29 November 1927, Page 14

LIBEL ACTION FAILS.

[WAITOMO COUNTY DISPUTE. CRITICISM OF METHODS. CLAIM BY A SURFACEMAN. LETTER IN NEWSPAPER. [BY TELEGRAPH. —OWN CORRESPONDENT. } HAMILTON, Monday. The publication of a letter in the King Country Chronicle criticising tho methods of the Waitomo County Council in general, and one of its employees in particular,. led to William Abbot Edward Andrew, road surfaceman, Tangitu, seek ing to recovor from Arthur Llewellyn .Flux, settler, Tangitu, secretary of the Tangitu Settlers' Association, tho sum ,of £250 damages for alleged libel. The case was heard in the Hamilton Supreme .Court to-day before Mr. Justice Ilerrl man, and a jury of 12. Mr. W. Noble appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. E. 11. JNorthcroft for defendant. The statement of claim set out that tho ■plaintiff was, on September 27, 1927, a .permanent surfaceman in the employ of tho Waitomo County Council on the roads in tho Tangitu district. On that date defendant caused to bo published ■of and concerning plaintiff in the King ■Country Chronicle, the following words Attitude of Association. "This association has consistently advocated that the labour employed on the road should be (a) capable, (b) married residents of the district if possible, (c) unrelated to councillors. Wo < believe that these are reasonable qualifications, in spite of the opinion ot the members of tho Waitomo County Council, and the fr.ct that a single roadman gets married does not necessarily put him right/ under (a) or (c). 'We are not dealing in aspersions or insinuations, but in principles and facts, and pre judging by results as we see them. From the best information we can obtain tho maintenance expenditure on the pumice road from Tangitu to Mapiu in crie period of 12 months was queried by the Main Highways Board, arid was about £4OO for the three miles, using the horse and dray and councillor's son method."

It was stated that plaintiff was a son of a Mr. ; James Andrew, a member of the Waitomo County Council, and it was contended that defendant meant by the publication of the words quoted that plaintiff was slothful, incompetent, and incapable of satisfactorily performing the duties required of him, by reason of which his employment by the Waitomo County Council was a cause of serious loss to his employers. By reason of the publication plaintiff claimed that he had been greatly injured in. his reputation as a competent and diligent workman, end.had suffered great pain and distress. Plaintiff sought to recover £250 as general damages. Fair Comment Claimed. For tl • etice it was denied that the words complained of were defamatory, and that they referred to plaintiff. It . was contended that tho paragraph was a fair and bona-fide comment on matters of public interest, and was published by defendant bona fide for tho benefit of the public and without malice toward plaintiff, and in pursuant of defendant's duty as secretary of the Tangitu Settlers' Association, in reply to comments published in the King Country Chronicle, on matters in dispute between the association anfl the Waitomo County Council. Plaintiff gave evidence on the lines of his statement of claim He said he had not lost his employment, but felt he would have to resign owing to the unpleasantness; caused by the publication of the comments. In answer to Mr. Northcroft plaintiff said he had considered buying a farm in the Tangitu district. Michael Fennell, engineer to the Waitomo County Council, said he heard Flux criticise Andrew's work at a meeting of the Tangitu Settlers' Association. Witness fonhed the opinion that Flux believed what he said' was true and that he showed no malice. Witness considered that Andrew was a competent surfaceman. Andrew was employed in the Tangitu riding which was represented byAndrew's .father on the council. This fact would not prevent him from dealing with Andrew if he thought action necessary. County Chairman's Evidence. .Llewellyn Robert Jones, chairman of the Waitomo County' Council, said he attended a meeting of the Tangitu Settlers' Association at which Flux expressed the opinion that it would be in the interests of the county that Andrew should be dismissed as he' was not doing his work satisfactorily. Witness investigated one complaint that was made and found that Andrew had clone the work quite well. In answer to Mr. Northcroft, witness said the sons of two members of the council were employed by the council. Witness did not see any objection to relatives of councillors being employed by the council: To the Judge: Witness said he thought Flux was honest in his criticism. James Andrew, father of plaintiff, gave evidence that at tl, I'angitu meeting defendant stated that witness' son was not worthy of his wages. The 'Tangitu settlers had passed a vote of no-confidence in witness and he resigned from the association. No personal feeling had been exhibited. At the conclusion ot the plaintiff's case Mr. Northcroft moved for a non-suit on the grounds that the statement was not defamatory, that it was fair comment on public matters and that it was privileged "Nothing to Justify Case." Mr. Noble said the letter complained of referred to a particular piece of work done by plaintiff and stated that it hud cost a grossly excessive amount, which was untrue./ It also referred to the councillor's son method and insinuated that- the fact of his getting married would not make plaintiff competent or othor than a councillor's son. His Honor said ratepayers were competent to criticise the work of a local body so long as the criticism was fanPlaintiff's oWn witnesses had asserted that tho criticism was honest. The J:;dt;e said the case was one which should not have beer brought to Court. There was nothing to justify it. Settlers were entitled to comment on the work of local bodies ad ministering/ their affairs. The comment in this case did not go beyond fair criticism. The employment of the son of a councillor,. said His Honor, might be fraught "with suspicion and ratepayers had the right to criticise it. His Honor added that after having listened to witnesses and read the letter complained of he had come to the conclusion that tliere was no rational evidence upon which plaintiff could rest his rase. He would, therefore, be non-suited >vith coslSf,