ALLEGED SLANDER

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21983, 19 June 1933, Page 6

ALLEGED SLANDER

SALE OF CHEMICAL FORMULA ADDRESSES BY COUNSEL IPeb United Press Association.) WELLINGTON, June 17. The claim for £2500 damages in which Reginald Charles Boddie, sales organiser, of Wellington, alleges slander against James Dickson Sievwright, retired, also of . Wellington, was continued in the Supreme Court to-day before Mr Justice Ostler. 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 for the manufacture of a chemical preparation in which the parties were associated." , G. A. Lawrence, an analytical consulting chemist, said that from an analysis which he had made of the Clarogene preparation and another preparation produced by the Christchurch , company it was obvious that the two products were manufactured from entirely different formula:. In answer to a question he said thß preparations contained the same iugredients, but not in the same proportions. Mr O'Leary, addressing the eourt on behalf of the defendant, said that so/far as the ease in general was concerned, the proceedings had shown, to use the plaintiff's own words to Neill and Sievwright, that he was a man " with no reputation to lose." If it came to an assessment of damages, then, it was submitted, the plaintiff's words could be applied, and he would not be entitled to any damages. Counsel further submitted that all the occasions of the alleged use of the words were occasions of qualified privilege. He submitted that there was no evidence that the defendant used the words oh these occasions otherwise than honestly. On another branch of the defence it was contended that it had been proved that Boddie was a rogue and that what the defence set out to justify had been amply justified. Mr Evans-Scott, counsel for Boddie, in his address, submitted that the statements alleged by the plaintiff were clearly slanderous and that there was no justification for their use. He contended among other things that it had been shown, from a legal point of view, that the .formula taken over by the Christchurch company and used by the company was not Boddie's formula. Dealing with the question of privilege, which, he submitted, did not exist, counsel said that if there was any doubt about the matter it was destroyed by the defendant's conduct. It had been shown, he argued, - that the defendant had acted maliciously. Counsel referred to the testimonials as to Boddie's character and to the evidence of witnesses who had sworn that in their dealings with the plaintiff they had found Boddie an honest man.

When the court adjourned Mr EvaneScott had not concluded his address. The hearing, will be resumed on Monday.