COURT OF APPEAL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22212, 15 March 1934, Page 14

COURT OF APPEAL

ACTION FOR SLANDER BODDIE-SIEVWRIGHT CASE. (Peb United Press Association.) WELLINGTON, March 14. The Court of Appeal to-day continued the hearing of the case on (appeal of Reginald Charles Boddie against James Dickson Sievwright, of Wellington, retired journalist. The appeal arises out of an action for slander brought by the appellant Boddie against the respondent Sievwright, and heard before Mr Justice Ostler in June last. The appellant alleged five allegations of slander which fell into four groups. Mr O'Leary, in opening the case for the respondent, submitted that the only question which concerned the Court of Appeal was whether the damages allowed by the trial judge, amounting in all to three farthings, were reasonable considering the evidence given as to the appellant's character and as to the pecuniary loss suffered by him as a result of the slander. The damages, he contended, had been assessed upon a correct principle of law. The respondent had pleaded that, in view of the appellant's bad character, he was entitled to make the statements which he had made to protect others. By so pleading that he was justified he was entitled to call evidence of specific acts of misconduct on the part of the appellant, such as that of the alleged theft of a door, in mitigation of any damages which the trial judge might allow. Such evidence justifying the statements that the appellant was a rogue and ought to be in gaol had been given by the respondent and had been accepted by the trial judge, as was shown by the fact that only contemptuous damages had been awarded. By giving thin evidence the respondent had not aggravated the injury caused by slanders-. The evidence was necessary an t ] admissible to prove his justification. Mr O'Leary submitted that any evidence of specific acts of dishonesty and misconduct of appellant which was admissible to prove justification of .respondent could be -taken into account by the trial judge in ascertaining the general character of the appellant and in assessing damages. In reply, Mr C. H. Weston. K.C., counsel for the appellant, submitted that specific acts of misconduct did not in themselves indicate that the appellant had a general bad reputation. Even if this evidence were admissible in proving justification it was not admissible in assessing damages. The court reserved its decision.