LEN. ISITT LIBELLED.

NZ Truth, Issue 309, 27 May 1911, Page 6

LEN. ISITT LIBELLED.

DEBT AND DEFAMATION.

A Prohibitionist on the Black List.

A VERDICT FOR £500.

Wowserdom and Christchurch generally were interested m a libel action heard before Mr Justice Denniston and a jury of twelve on Tuesday, wherein Leonard M. Isitt, ex-parson, Qold tea apostle, bible seller and fancy goods monger, sued James Mawson Stewart, secretary to the Christchurch Traders' Mutual Protection Association, t,o recover £1000 m respect of damage sustained by the placing of Leonard's name on the association's black list — the sum owing being Gs.

Costs were m strong force, Isitt being represented by Lawyer A. S. Adams,, cold tea advocate, of Dunedin, and Mr Gresson, instructed by Solicitor Salter, and Stewart by Messrs George Harper and Raymond (Timaru), instructed by Mr E. T. Harper.

Mr Adams mentioned that Isitt, who was a bookseller, had been resident m the city

FOR A QUARTER OF A CENTURY, and his business was not only of a local character, but was also with firms, m Australia and other British countries, and his credit was his most valuable asset. It was not a question of the small stock m his business, which might be worth £500 or £600, but, it was necessary that the people dealing with him should have every confidence m him, so that he might carry on his business with success. Stewart was an accountant and secretary t,o the Traders' Mutual Protection Association, and was m the habit of sending out to the subscribers of that association monthly lists of the people who were unable to pay their debts, who were insolvent, and to whom it might be deemed undesirable to give credit. On one of these lists, issued on or about January 5, there appeared, "Isitt, L.M., bookseller. Christchurch." thereby implying that plaintiff had been unable to pay his just debts. Defendhad admitted the facts, and it appeared to counsel that the only defence set up was the ,one of privilege. He called evidence.

Leonard M. Isitt gave evidence to the effect that he had resided m Christchurch for about twenty-five years, and had been m business about four years. He didn't think he had ever had any financial dealings with Stewart. Had been dealing with Co,oke and Son, chemists, for twenty-five years. Six weeks or two months after January 5 Isitt learned from Cooke that he

OWED THE FIRM 65,---a domestic account. That was paid on January 7 by the witness's son. Prior to that Cooke bought an eight-and-sixpenny article at Isitt's, payinc: cnsH. i »■> i.Udn't then mention the debt. This was m November. They had a long business tajlc later, but Cooke mentioned nothing about the 6s. During the currency of the 6s account an account of 25s was paid to Cooke and Son by his daughter. Different members of his family obtained things at Cooke's, his son being responsible for the 6s' account. Isitt's business stock was worth about £3000. Isitt m January was told that he was on the

black list of the Traders' Protection Society. With the exception of two

(Wellington Tram Inspector)

Just gaze upon this fine "old oss," Known to the boys as Plain Bill Cross ;

At Lambton used to give the word, To trams both from and to suburb. Now him they've great respect, for, Bill is now a gay inspector.

New Zealand houses Isitt's business was with English and American firms. Counsel asked his Honor if Isitt might give an opinion about the damage he had sustained. His Honor said the jury would judge of the result that Avould naturally fall from the -words. Isitt. said that Avhat he complained of was the cutting off of supplies. Mr Adams asked Mr Harper to supply him with a list of the Association members, but Mr Harper declined, and Mr Adams remarked upon the fact. His Honor said Mr Adams had no right to comment upon the subject to the jury. ... The witness said he had no credit, business with V. Hcdwell. .James Mitchell, William Booth, or J- /=•• Williams members of the Association, to whom black lists had been

S Mr' Harper : T bebeve Mr Cooke is a personal friend ol yours ?— Ma.s been.

Ts he still ? , Mr Adams interjected, and was icproved by his Honor. His Honor : You haven't answeied if he is still.-Oh, T think so Cooke told Isitt later that he felt himself morally responsible. tne amount had then been

OWING -EIGHTEEN MONTHS, according to Cooke. Isftf asked his

I accountant if she knew anything [ about it, and she said she had re- ! ceived four or five accounts, which ! she handed to Isitt's son. | You are both of the same denomi- | nation— you and Mr Cooke ?— Yes. Mr Harper said he asked the question to show the friendship between them. To Mr Adams Isitt said that Cooke had said he was exceedingly sorry for taking this action, and didn't know why. he had done it. George Thomas Booth was placed m the witness-box and asked if he had been present at a meeting of directors of Simpson and Williams, booksellers. Counsel first asked for his Honoris ruling whether he' Could j ask the witness if the list was discussed at this meeting, and his Honor replied m the negative, mentioning dryly, that the matter had reached the jury. He requested counsel to loyally support the court m its ruling. Mr Harper said that there was

very little m dispute. Stewart was the .secretary to the Association, he was not a member of it, and was receiving .£4O per year for his services. The Society was composed of a number of members of wholesale and retail firms carrying on business m Christchurch. It was a trades' society whose members kept within themselves information respecting the credit of persons with whom they might have business. In the printed list there appeared the name of "Isitt, L. M., bookseller, Colombo - street, Christchurch" ; there was no amount before his name, and the list was published only to members of the Association.

TTis Honor : Are the members confined to local people ?

Counsel : Yes : entirely to people m the city of Christchurch. The defence "pleaded privilege, that was to say (1) what had been published was true ; (2) . it was circulated amongst a certain set of the Society's members; and (3) the members of that Society had a

COMMON INTEREST IN KNOWING IT.

The defence held that unless malice could be inferred they might succeed on the question of privilege.

Stewart, the defendant, said that the Traders' Mutual Protection Association was formed m Christchurch from eighteen months to two years ago, and witness was the secretary at a salary of £40 per annum. The Association was unregistered, and now comprised about thirty-three firms.

TTis Honor : You are getting into details and may find it necessary to give the names.

The affairs of the Association were controlled by an executive, and the subscription was fixed at £2 2s per annum. The Association was not carried on for profit. Personally Stewart didn't seek for information about the status of any person whose name was sent to him by any member pf the Association, who never forwarded the amounts of indebtedness. Stewart arranged the names m alphabetical order, they were printed, and sent out m sealed envelopes to the members. They were delivered and were not sent through the post. Stewart had never met Isitt. m his life. In September, 1910. a slip was sent to Stewart by Cooke and Son, who were members of the Association. It contained several names, including that of Isitt. and they were printed and sent to members m the usual way. Tho next happening- was the receipt of a writ. l:>y Stewart. Afterwards notice was received th.it Isitt had paid the amount, and the name was erased from the list. To Mr Adams : No matter whose name was sunt it was put on the list, without- inquiry. Defore you received the writ r-iD you write thkisateningLETTERS t-.-. members of tho executive? No satisfactory answer could be obtained to this' quesLion, tho witness appearing to misunderstand. I lis Honor said that if the letters existed they should be put m. Mr Ad cans sa : d he was unable to produce them. yini-svn and Williams wore mem- j bers of the Association and had received a Ist of ihe nanus. The As- j solvation was not carried on for < profit. i . ■ Mr Adams: Would you have placed air Isitt's name on the list if you knew it was for 6s ? — Yes. If it was owing; for fourteen months. | You wouldn't say that he was a person with whom it would be unsafe to do business ?— He might not ' be a person to whom credit might ! be given, if he were long-winded. !

Counsel pressed the question, and the witness said it depended upon whether he were going to do any more business with Isitt.

Wm. A. Cooke, chemist, said he had a method every six months by ' which a slip was enclosed with accounts advising prompt payment. In December, 193 0, fourteen months after the. account was contracted, the firm wrote off the debt as a bad debt and included it, with other names of persons who owed accounts, m a list forwarded to the secretary to the Association. In January, 1911, Cooke was away from Christchurch, and upon, his return, m the first week m February, he interviewed Isitt, telling him the reason why his name appeared on the list. In justice to Isitt, he thought he ought to know the source of the information. Isitt expressed surprise and seemed to have no knowledge of the account, but his accountant, 'When interviewed, remembered the receipt o:f bills, which had been passed on to Mr Isitt's son as being a private account.

COOKE EXPRESSED HIS REGRET at an action which Isitt said had been injurious to him, and explained the custom of his firm m. these matters. Isitt said he didn't, know what he would do m the matter, but he would consult his solicitor. They went down the street together, and the witness was glad to say that Isitt shook hands with him at parting. Cooke said that Stewart was a paid servant, and if any action were taken it should be against him (Cooke). Isitt replied that he wouldn't take acti,on for a matter like that.

To Mr Adams : Isitt had been m his shop and engaged m a long conversation with him. Cooke felt inclined at the time to ask for a settlement, but didn't care to do so.

Mr Raymond submitted that there was no question to go to the jury on the evidence, on the ground that the communication was privileged (1) as being on a subject m which both sets of persons .whom Stewart was representing were commercially interested, arid being made for the protection of such common interest ; (2) the communi cation was privileged as being made to persons interested m receiving the communication whirh interest it was the legal duty of Stewart, as employee of such persons, to protect or promote. It was no part of the duty of the employee to inquire into matter furnished by an employer whom he had no reason to distrust. Also there was no malice on his part.

The court here entered into a long dry-as-dust discussion on the question of privilege, during which learned exchange of remarks the jury were permitted to retire

Finally his Honor summed up unfavorably to the plea of privilege on the authorities submitted, but was m doubt if the case should be disposed of at once or if they

MIGHT GO DEEPER INTO THE MATTER. Mr Adams said that he preferred that the matter should go to the jury at once. Mr Harper said that as the judge had expressed his* opinion that Stewart's defence was good m law; it was ouly a question of damages. He addressed the jury briefly on that point. His Honor : I said he was technically responsible for carrying it to another person. Mr Harper : Then the case is still open. His Honor reserved judgment on the law point. Mr Adams addressed the jury- at length. It was not the question ,of the non-payment of a debt. By placing Isitt's name on the Associa-

tion's list it was conveyed that he was a person to whom credit might not safely be given by business men.

Tn the course of his Honor's summing up Mr Adams stated that tha conversation between Cooke and Isitt took place after the issue of the writ, "when Mr Cooke said he was responsible." Mis Honor : Why was that observation made ? Mi Adams (after a pause) : 1 should not have made it. your Honor. . His Honor characterised the observation as an imnroper anc". an illegitimate one. Mr Cooke had never been asked a question on the subject. Counsel had implied that the society was behind the secretary, but tho jury had no right whatever to assume that this man should not bear the full amount of any damages. should damages be allowed. H ! s Honor said he hr..d ruled for the time being that the publication was not privileged, for the purser-'.' 0i " submitting it to the jury, whom he addressed on the sub- . jeer of damages.

After a lengthy retirement the ■ 'jury retimed •'•":'*' ■■ A v erdict for the ; plaintiff for £500 damages. j Mr Harper moA-ed to arrest judg- ; ment, to set aside the verdict, and |to enter judgment for defendant, or for a nonsuit or a new trial. His Honor intimated that he would give his reserA r ed judgment later. ; ; Costs AA'ere nlloAvecl as per scale, ! !£5 5s being allowed for second j 'counsel. I