ALLEGED SLANDER

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 23227, 22 December 1938, Page 16

ALLEGED SLANDER

£IOO DAMAGES CLAIM UNION SECRETARY SUED TRANSPORT LICENSING SEQUEL [FROM Of It OWN COIUtKSI'ONOENTI HAMILTOX, Wednesday Further evidence was hoard before Mr. S. L. Pat'erson. S.M., in the Hamilton .Magistrate's Court to-day in tho case in which Richard Claude Evans , Kendall, cartage contractor, Hamilton J (Mr. W. J. King), sought to recover £I.OO damages from Lawrence Gerard Matthews, secretary of the Drivers' Union, Auckland (Mr. F. H. Haigh), for alleged slander. Tho case arose out of statements said to have been made b.v the defendant when plaintiff was seeking an extension to a licence before the No. 1 Licensing Authority in Hamilton on October 13. tho plaintiff contending that tho statements were false and malicious. For the defence, it was contended that the licensing proceedings were of a judicial character, and that the statements made by defendant were privileged, or alternatively, that there was qualified privilege. Evidence lor the Defence John Richard Stuart, surfaceman, Mataniata, gave evidence for defendant that he was in plaintiff's employ for 18 months at Hinuera as manager and lorry driver. Ho left Kendall in July, IU.J7. Witness said he worked about five hours a week overtime for Kendall. Ho had signed for £4 16s a week, and had received only £4 a week. Overtime was not entered, because he had boon instructed by plaintiff not to do so. He was told he would be dismissed it he did. The same instruction applied to other workmen employed by Kendall. When witness received £lO back pay under the Finance Act, Kendall demanded that the money should lie returned or he would be dismissed. Witness sent the cheque back. After ho had been put off, he complained to tho union secretary at Hamilton. Ho had not heard Kendall threaten any of tho other drivers. K\ idence was given by Ronald Graham Hell, motor driver, that when he was employed by Kendull lie was told that no overtime was to be entered in the books or he would be dismissed. He often worked overtime, but he did not enter it. The Plaintiff's Reply Giving evidence in rebuttal, Herbert James Chapman, foreman driver, said lie had been employed bv plaintiff lor seven years. He described Kendall's employees as a happy crow, and'said there hail been no trouble about overtime or back pay. Ho had been paid the full award wages, and had bean paid the overtime he claimed. The plaintiff, recalled, said the (tornplaints made by his employees regarding claims of overtime had been investigated by the Labour Department. The officials" told him that his books wore in order, and witness was not instructed to pay an overtime claim. Witness denied having demanded a refund of back pav from Stuart under threat of dismissal. He told Stuart that he did not think the back, pay should have been ordered by the Labour Department, and that, if Stuart cared to leturn the money, well and good. Tilery was no threat of dismissal. He dciped 1 that lie required *men to sign receipts | for more money than thvy had actually i received. There was no need for overtime to be worked at Hinuera owing I to the regularity of the employment. After hearing lengthy legal argu- | mont., tho magistrate reserved his decision.