ALLEGED SLANDER

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21978, 13 June 1933, Page 8

ALLEGED SLANDER

HEAVY DAMAGES CLAIMED SALE OF CHEMICAL FORMULA. (Per United Press Association.) WELLINGTON, June 12. ' A claim for £2500 damages was heard before Mr Justice Ostler torday in which Reginald Charles Boddie, sales organiser, of Wellington, alleges slander against ; James Dickson Sievwright, retired, also of Wellington. ■ _ The plaintiff complains of statements alleged to have been made falsely and maliciously by the defendant to one H. J. Lockyer affecting: the plaintiff’s credit and reputation- in connection with the business of a syndicate Tor the manufacture of a chemical preparation in which the parties were associated. Mr O'Leaiff?, for the defence, said it would be submitted that the statements were made on occasions of qualified privilege and without malice. The plaintiff ‘had advertised for' someone with £SO to communicate with him. A Mrs Miller let Boddie have £SO on the security of the formula. Later, the plaintiff came to Sievwright and obtained £lO, again pledging the formula. After this the plaintiff apparently sold another shate to W. T. Neale. It was gradually revealed to these three that each had paid for the same thing. A syndicate was then formed, but the business proved unsatisfactory. Counsel then described at some length how the formula was prepared by one Ruddle at Christchurch and sold to the company. The sale of the formula was a complete sale of all the rights connected with it/ and was not restricted to the South Island. MTKellar, chairman of the company, would give evidence to that effect and that when Boddie wai getting the iponey he was acting fraudulently. It was also alleged that the plaintiff had borrowed money on chattel* in Auckland and sold the chattels, appropriating the money. A. M'Kellar, public accountant, of Christchurch, gave details of the purchase of the formula by a Christchurch company which took the sole rights. The company was still going, and was not in financial difficulties. The plaintiff had no right to negotiate for the sale of thepreparation. ‘ The hearing, was adjourned.