ALLEGED SLANDER.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 21030, 14 November 1931, Page 14

ALLEGED SLANDER.

£3400 DAMAGES CLAIM. | COMPANY MANAGER SUED, i ACTION BY A BUILDER. AFFAIRS OF DAIRY COMPANY. An action for alleged libel and slander v.-as commenced in tho Supreme Court yesterday before Mr. Justice Herdman and a jury of 12. The plaintiff was Percival George Allsop, of Hamilton, building contractor and architect, who took action against William Goodfellow, of Auckland, company manager, claiming damages totalling £3400. From September, 1919, to February, 1924, Allsop was employed as manager of the building department of the New Zealand Co-opera-tive Dairy Company. The plaintiff alleged that about 3923 the defendant, as managing director of the New Zealand Co-operative Dairy Company, caused an entry to be made in the books falsely debiting £6OOO to the building department of the company. This entry, which was published to suppliers, made it appear that the building department had been carried on at a loss whereas it had actually been carried on at- a profit. In June, 1925, an inquiry was held before Sir George Fowlds and Mr. J. R. Fow into certain allegations against the directors of the company. The finding of that commission was published in the Dairy farmer of July 20, 1925, by Goodfellow, and plaintiff alleged that Goodfellow had '"falsely and maliciously caused to be published an alleged copy " of the report of the inquiry. The effect of the report was to make it appear that Allsop had made overcharges in respect of the Te Awamutu factory, and that he was an incompetent building contractor and architect, discharging his duty in a negligent and improper manner. Further Allegations. Plaintiff claimed that on one occasion defendant wrote an answer to plaintiff: •" I am not going to put up with your abusive language. It looks to me very like blackmail. I have come to the conclusion that you are not mentally normal; and the sooner you get a job and get to work the better for your health and your pocket." Plaintiff further alleged that on certain occasions defendant- had slandered plaintiff to Edward Charles Houcheu by saying: "Ho has made a mess of quite a lot of jobs" and "He has tried to blackmail me." The defence denied many of the allegations. and further pleaded that the, words complained of were true in substance and in fact. Justification and privilege were pleaded. Counsel for plainliff said Goodfellow had a building department, of which the plaintiff Allsop was made manager, and he was entrusted with the building, of a milk-powder factory at Te Awamutu. When finished it cost- the company, according to the figure given by Allsop in April, 1922, a sum of £12,270. Defendant was so pleased with plaintiff's work on this building that he gave him a bonus of £ioo. Counsel was continuing to explain the affairs of the dairy company, when His Honor intervened to say: "If you are going to investigate the operations of the New Zealand Co-operative Dairy Company, we shall be here till Christmas. The sooner you get to the point the better." Counsel said that when the auditors wanted an explanation of the transfer of certain sums Goodfellow told them that Allsop had been bungling and had overcharged the Te Awamutu factory building account to the extent of £BBOO. Payments to Plaintiff. Goodfellow made no complaint about this to, Allsop, but next year dismissed him, and closed the department. At the same time he gave Allsop £250 in lieu of three months' notice and for holidays due. Later, under pressure from plaintiff, defendant gave him a £IOO bonus and took him back into the employ of the company as building inspector at a salary of £425. - - Counsel said the shareholders obtained a commission of inquiry, the findings of which Goodfellow considered were in his favour / and were published by him in the Dairyfarmer. Plaintiff sought, to get redress apart from the law as long as he could, but in the end he was driven to go to law. The plaintiff said the building department of the Co-operative Dairy Company grew until the annual turnover was £125,000, and he was entirely responsible for its success. He had remonstrated with Mr. Goodfellow when he learned that a- debit of £6OOO had been made to his department, although it had actually made a profit of £I4OO. After being reemployed he was dismissed from the company's service jn October* 1925, on the ground that there was no work to do, yet he had six months' work on hand at the time. He made every effort to get Mr. Goodfellow to investigate the position of his department, of which he was proud, but he was bluffed on every occasion. Ho issued a writ against the company for £I7OO for bonuses, but lost the case. Plaintiff Cross-examined. In cross-examination plaintiff said he claimed he was in fact an architect, although ho was not a registered architect, and that- his professional reputation has suffered through Mr. Goodfeliow's treatment. He was cross-examined at some length on an auditor's report of 1923 on the Co-operative Dairy Company's finances and pressed to say how the auditor's comments could be held to reflect on him. His explanation led His Honor to say, "You are too sensitive, Mr. Allsop." Witness admitted signing a receipt in 1924 for £IOO in full settlement of all the claims he had against the company, but added that Mr. Goodfellow demanded arid got back £2O of this from him for nothing. Witness was shown an entry in his diary relating to this in which he wrote, '■' Repaid Mr. Goodfellow £20." Witness denied that the word "Repa;d" v, as there, and after His Honor Lad examined the book it was handed to the jury; Several times His Honor asked, "What did yo,U put that word "repaid" in there for?" the witness finally stating that he could not explain. Ills Honor: .\re you abio to explain vhv Mr. Goodfellow should get that £2O ? Witness said Mr. Goodfellow claimed that- witness owed him that amount, but he did not really owe it. He would not deny having said he look this action because ho wanted the money that the company had wrongly deprived him of. He had talked to so many and talked so much that he could not rernembry all lie had said. Ho denied that he hail ap pioach'ed representatives of rival dairy companies tor funds to assist him in his campaign against the Co-operative Dairy Company. A letter written by plaintiff was read and it made voluminous charges of perjury, dishonesty arid vuthlessness against the defendant. Plaintiff was still under cross examination when the hearing v.as adjourned until Monday morning.