BOARDERS AT VARIANCE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22137, 15 December 1933, Page 8

BOARDERS AT VARIANCE

MEDICAL STUDENTS SUED SLANDEROUS STATEMENTS ALLEGED In the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., Everard Joseph Ward (a salesman) proceeded against William Watt, James M'Haffie, and A. C. Belfield (medical students), and H. Border (a clerk), claiming £25 as damages arising out of alleged slanderous statements regarding the plaintiff, said to have been uttered by the defendants,—-Mr I. B. Stevenson appeared for plaintiff, and Mr G. T. Baylee for the defendants. In his statement of claim, the plaintiff said that for some years prior to September 21 he was residing at a boarding house at 43 Royal terrace. He maintained that on or about September 21, the defendant William Watt falsely and maliciously said to the landlady. “ I think that Mr Ward has something that we might catch from him. At the end of our last term, our vitality drops, and it wouldn’t be easy to stand against it. . , . He should be living in the country, out in the open and not touching bread or food that anybody else is touching. . . . Yes, we do think there is something wrong with him ” thereby meaning that the plaintiff was suffering from an infectious and contagious disease, namely, consumption, and was unfit by reason of this to live with other persons, and to be admitted into society. The words referred to were spoken to the landlady by Watt, with the authority, consent, and endorsement of the other defendants. By reason of these premises, the plaintiff was compelled to leave the boarding house and was put to much inconvenience and discomfort and to the expense of £2 ss. The plaintiff incurred medical expenses amounting to £2 15s. He therefore claimed from the defendants the sum of £2 5s for the expense of garaging his car, £lO as damages for inconvenience and discomfort caused through having to shift, £2 15s for medical expenses, and £lO as general damages—a total of £25.

The plaintiff, in evidence, said that generally, his relations with the defendants had been quite friendly. He had had slight brushes with them, but these were of little consequence. About two years and a-half ago he had not been in very good health, and he had been under treatment for a digestive trouble. As a result of this treatment', his condition gradually improved, and during the past six months he had felt as fit as ever he did in his life. So far as he was aware, the defendants had never shown any reluctance towards him being in their company. In consequence of a conversation with his landlady he had left her boarding house, and later she gave him further particulars as to her wishing him to leave. He then saw Horder, and asked him what all the trouble was about and what the defendants were afraid of catching, to which Horder replied, “ Nothing.” Later, he elicited the fact it was his cough that worried the defendants,' and that it was getting on their nerves. He had been perfectly contented at the boarding house, and leaving had put him to considerable inconvenience, more especially as he now had to pay 5s per week for garaging his car. Dr Burns stated that during the past two years he had seen the patient on three occasions, and had never detected any signs of tubercular trouble. At the plaintiff’s specific request he made a thorough examination in September last, and found the plaintiff entirely free of any trace of the disease. To Mr Baylee: The words used could not be applied to influenza. No one could tell the cause of influenza, and therefore no one could tell how it was transmitted. To Mr Stevenson: Witness could not think of anything but consumption that the words might apply to. The proprietress of the boarding house in question said that when the defendants first approached her about the plaintiff, Watt said that they had a proposition to. put to her about his coughing. This proposition was to the effect that if he were not told to leave they would have to change their lodgings, as they were afraid of catching something from him. They intimated that they were always getting colds and sore throats, and they thought that plaintiff should be in the country in the fresh air, as during the last terra their vitality was so low that they had to be very careful whom they associated with. From her conversation with the defendants witness understood that perhaps Ward was suffering from some lung or throat trouble. She thought, indeed, that he might have consumption. Later, when the defendants were discussing the plaintiff’s proposal to take action against them, MTlaffie suggested to witness that she should ring the plaintiff’s solicitor and tell him that she had made a mistake as to what they had said to her, but this she refused to do. Shq later ascertained that Ward was prepared to accept an apology and drop the proceedings on condition that his expenses were paid, so that she would not have to appear in court. She told the defendants this but they gave her no satisfaction.

Cross-examined by Mr Baylee, witness admitted that the defendants had never mentioned consumption. From their remarks there was nothing left for her to understand but that Ward had tuberculosis.

Mr Baylee, in moving for a nonsuit, submitted that the plaintiff had not established a claim for damages; moreover, there had been no proof that the statements were made maliciously. Counsel went on to quote legal authority in support of his contention and after Mr Stevenson had replied, his Worship said that when the four defendants approached the landlady, it was clear that the occasion was a privileged one. It was therefore incumbent on the plaintiff to prove that the statements they had uttered were made maliciously. It was evident that the defendants were somewhat concerned about the whole position, and if they had acted in honesty and good faith in making the remarks, the plaintiff had no right of action against them. There was nothing in the present proceedings to show that they liad not so acted, and the plaintiff must therefore be nonsuited and pay solicitor’s fee (£3 3s).