LIBEL AND SLANDER.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21102, 12 August 1930, Page 3

LIBEL AND SLANDER.

COURT FIXES DAMAGES. ACTION AGAINST Q.D. AND H.P. CLAIM BY FORMER REPRESENTATIVE.

Damages amounting to £515 were awarded in the Supreme Court by Mr Justice Kennedy yesterday in a case in which Daniel Moir, an engineer, of Kaikorai, proceeded against Quarterly Dividends, Ltd., and National House Purchase, Ltd., on an action for £BSO damages foi' alleged libel and slander. A portion of the statement of claim set out that in November last David N. Johnston, local secretary of the companies for New Zealand, had been convicted in Invercargill of false pretences, and that at the trial the plaintiff was one of four witnesses who gave extensive, important, and material evidence for the prosecution. On February 16, 1930, William Taverner, acting with the authority of the defendant, falsely and maliciously published concerning the plaintiff a circular letter in which he accused the plaintiff and the other three witnesses of perjuring themselves at the trial. Other claims were made in respect of letters sent by Taverner’s wife to members of the scheme accusing the plaintiff, of embezzlement and theft, and also in respect of a statement made by Taverner at a meeting of . subscribers that the plaintiff had been guilty of theft and perjury. The action was not defended, but mention was made of a letter in which Taverner stated that he had been called away to England on account of an operation to his wife’s teeth, and asking for an adjournment for a year. Mr W. G. Hay and Mr J. N. Thomson appeared for the plaintiff, Mr Hay,, in outlining the. cast, said that the claim was made against two companies—Quarterly Dividends, Ltd., and National House Purchase; Ltd.—whose names had already been before the court. The companies had been incorporated in England and were carrying, on financial operations in New Zealand. The defendants Fad not', thought fit to file a statement of defence, although they had bad ample opportunity to do so. He, understood that a letter had been received by Moir from a man named Taverner, who said that he had written to the court. His Honor said that there was a letter dated July 12, addressed to the registrar and bearing the Dunedin postmark. Mr Hay added that Taverner had originally, been a director of the companies and held power of attorney for them in New Zealand. The writ bad been served about the end of June, and 'Taverner had actually come to Dunedin with a barrister from Auckland to do something. He had endeavoured to force a settlement,. but the plaintiff bad refused to nave anything to do with it. r That had occurred early,, ip July, and nothing had been done since. Taverner said that, he had been called away to England, inferring that hia wife was - ill, ana suggesting that the case be a4* journed for a year so that he could defend it when he returned after his wife had recovered from an operation to her teeth. There was some talk of a private* counterclaim. Outside this there appeared to be no defence. The action arose from vile libel published by the authority of the company, . through Taverner and his wife, the latter acting as secretary. His Honor: Is this the lady whose teeth are supposed to have been extracted? Mr. - Hay ■ replied -that it. was. The allegation mad's by the defendants was that the plaintiff bad perjured himself, A circular letter had beeen extensively published in which the following statement appeared:-—“Mr Johnston was convicted and sentenced solely and only ■ through deliberate perjury of' four of the Crown witnesses.” In subsequent letters sent to members, Mrs Taverner definitely stated that the plaintiff' had "tetleived sums of £209 and £2lO in terms requiring him to account for them, and had converted them to his owp use; • Fpr each of these letters £SO damagearrwaa'olaiined. Then the defendants published a ;Jetter to a man named Milne in which they stated that Moir had failed to - account for money handed to him, and in which the following statement wag included;— “He has stolen £209 as far as w§ can trace." For this £30.0 damages was claimed. Then Taverner said at a meeting that Moir bad committed perjury and stolen abput £205 of the company's money and that he was to take action, to recover the amount.' There had been deliberate and malicious libel, Mr Hay added. The companies had charged Moir with embezzlement, theft, and perjury. This had potbeen done irj the form of abuse, but definite statements had been made with the intention that those: who heard, them ehould act upon them. Moir in 1927 had become interested in the scheme, and for some months had been attracted by it, Ip May, 1928, he had-; received a balance sheet, and hie suspicions had been aroused. He had thought that a depositor might very well lose a considerable sum of money. In September of the same year Taverner, who was then attorney for New Zealand, had come, to Dunedin, and Moir had expressed , his suspicionsFinally, it had been decided to call a public meeting at which Taverner was to explain the operations of the companies. Moir had occupied the-chair, And after hearing tho address had been disgusted tp find that'a statement regarding the period of a * loan did not agree with a letter which he had in his hands, Moir had stood UP and said that the scheme was not fitted to New Zealand conditions, and he had also, challenged ,Ta verner with making contradictory statements with regard to the period of loans.- Shortly afterwards -Taverner had addressed a meeting of subscribers, at which Moir had been present. Taverner had endeavoured to induce Moir to sign a letter to’the press in which he. was to withdraw his statements. Moir had declined to sign- Moir had done his, beet to prevent people from joining until everything wos cleared.UP- In Octqber Moir had been expelled through the instrumentality of Taverner. Tririally,. Taverner had . drawn' the attention of the authorities to the- operations of the companies. The police had taken the matter up, and a prosecution had been brought against the local secretary who had been convicted of obtaining money by false pretences.. Taverner hail oomo to New Zealand again, arriving in Mav of this year. At a meeting ot depositors he had made the deliberate statement that Moir was a perjurer anda thief. Bo long as Moir. had been .connected with the companies he had been a good fellow, but when he had become opposed to them 'they had started a campaign of deliberate vilification and detaination no doubt for the purpose of damaging him and rehabilitating the reputation of the companies at the expense of Moir’s reputation. They had been utterly reckless and had charged him with three serious crimes. Moir had taken action' in. an endeavour to overtake the libels and vindicate his character. It had all been done for the purpose of. working to the companies’ advantage with regard to a financial scheme by which people were to get rich quick. The plaintiff gave evidence along the lines of Mr Hay’s addreso. Ho added that he had been appointed local representative of the companies in August, 1927. He had received • deposits from members and numerous letters had been written to him expressing appreciation of his services. He had received deposits from nearly 200 persons. When Taverner had arrived m Dunedin in May, 1928,. one of the first things he had done was to borrow £lO from witness. After his expulsion he had resolved to spare neither time nor effort in exposing the companies. He had used his influence to . stop subscriptions, and from May to September, 1928, he had stopped about £12,000 from going to the companies. The deposits had ranged from £2 to £I2OO. Finally he bad written to Sir Joseph Ward in regard to the operations of the. company and had given important assistance to the police. In reply to a question from his Honor, Mr Hay stated that all the letters on which claims were made had been admitted, He added that one of the circulars of the companies stated that there were 1500 members in New Zealand. It was difficult to say to what extent the plaintiff had suffered. ■ In giving judgment, his Honor said the relief claimed by the plaintiff was tho payment of an unliquidated demanfi in money, namely, damages for libel and slander. Writs had been served, but the defendants had filed no statement of defence, and did not defend. . The action

was accordingly tried for the purpose of assessing damages,' It .appeared that the defendants were companies incorporated outside New Zealand, but they had carried on business in New Zealand, and had registered offices in Auckland.- It had been proved that the plaintiff was formerly a local representative in New Zealand of the defendant companies, but, becoming suspicious of the nature of the companies, he severed bis connection with them, and devoted himself to preventing intending subscribers from sending their moneys to the defendants. There was evidence that a representative of the defendant companies was indicted for false pretences and tried nt Invercargill, At that trial the plaintiff was one of four important Crown witnesses. The libels and slanders complained of were published subsequent to the plaintiff ceasing to be actively associated with the defendant companies. The libels were that the plaintiff had committed theft and had fraudulently misappropriated moneys of the defendant companies, and that in giving evidence at the trial'of Johnston he and others had committed perjury. The slander which the plaintiff complained of was a publication to the effect that the plaintiff was guilty of the fraudulent misappropriation of money and also that he was guilty of perjury. From the evidence it, appeared that there were four material witnesses for the Crown and that the plaintiff was one. His Honor said he did not doubt, therefore, that in the first libel alleged there was reference to the plaintiff. The libels and' - slanders were very grave . reflections on any man’s character, apd the damages must in the circumstances be substantial. A company was liable for a libel or slander published by its servants or agents, where it was expressed or implied, and where jt was published in the coarse of employment of such servants or agents; It Wes' cldar that the plaintiff was entitled to damages, and these he assessed as follows:—In respect to the cause set out in paragraphs 1 to 6 of the statement of claim, £250; in respect to thfe cause set out in paragraph 8, £25; with respect to the cause set out in paragraph 9, £25; in respect to the cause set out in paragraph 10, £5; in respect to the cause set out in paragraph 13, £25; in respect to the cause set out in paragraph 14, £10; in respect to the cfiuse set out in paragraph 17, £25; and in respect' to the cause set out in paragraphs 20, 21, and 22, £260, Judgment would, therefore, be given jointly and severally against both defendants for £515, with costa of writ according to scale. The sum of £ls 15s costs would be allowed for the hearing, with witnesses’ expenses and disbursements to bo fixed by the registrar.