SLANDER ACTION

Otago Daily Times, Issue 27346, 23 March 1950, Page 3

SLANDER ACTION

VERDICT FOR THE PLAINTIFF DAMAGES OF £SO AWARDED The hearing of the claim of £IOO for alleged slander by Flora Leila Esther McGregor, wife of William Ernest McGregor, of Kokoamo, a fanner, against Thomas Manley, of Kokoamo. a farmer, was continued before Mr J. G. Warrington. S.M., in the Oamaru Magistrate s Court yesterday morning. Mr J. E. Farrell appeared for the plaintiff and Mr E. M. Hay, of Christchurch, for the defendant. Under cross-examination, the witness H. C. Paton, who gave evidence on the previous day, said he had taken particular notice of certain words because he was out to get evidence against the defendant. He did not believe the statements made by the defendant, and so far as he was concerned Mrs McGregor’s reputation was the same as it was before. At this stage Mr Hay told the court that the defence would admit parts of the conversation, which they said were true, and would plead that this was an occasion of qualified privilege, and of common interest among neighbours. M. T. Fridd gave evidence of statements made at different times by the defendant, in addition to those contained in the statement of claim. In these statements it was alleged that Mrs McGregor had taken grass seed and wool. Witness did not believe the statements. On plaintiff taking the witness stand, Mr Farrell said she was available for cross-examination. To Mr Hay, she said the Manleys had been neighbours for 23 vears. She had had no conversation with either of the Manleys for five or six years. She denied being on the Manley property last Thursday night, in the winter of 1948, or on other occasions mentioned by counsel. She denied that she had ever attempted to gain admittance to the kitchen or that she had ever been surprised in the kitchen by Miss Manley. If evidence were given that she had been seen running from the property on several occasions it would be untrue. Mr Hay, in outlining the defence, said the defendant denied having spoken the words alleged. He admitted having spoken some of them, but denied having spoken any defamatory words. He denied saying that Mrs McGregor took the hat mentioned in the statement of claim, and his evidence would be that he said he suspected she had taken it. He admitted the conversation in which he said she was coming down the paddock, but would say that the rest of the conversation was wrong factually in several respects. The defence was that this was an occasion in which qualified privilege entered, that the defendant was bona fide and acting without malice, and that he and his neighbours had a common interest in the protection of their own property. . If the magistrate held the words proved, then the defendant had privilege in telling the people concerned of things that were going on in the neighbourhood. Evidence would be given, Mr Hay said, rebutting the evidence of Paton and the plaintiff on the question of credibility. Thomas Manley, the defendant, said that he and his brother, George, on August 3 last year saw Mrs McGregor running from the back of their house and then into a plantation. His own experience was that Mrs McGregor was not to be trusted. To Mr Farrell, the defendant said that August 3 was the date on which the police were notified. He had not heard of any police proceedings against Mrs McGregor. Evidence was also given for the defence by George Manley and Louise Elizabeth Manley. In giving judgment, Mr Warrington found that the statements alleged in the statement of claim were, in substance, made by the defendant. Such statements imputed that the plaintiff was guilty of chargeable offehces. They were defamatory and were not made on a privileged occasion. The plaintiff was, therefore, entitled to damages. Such statements made, unless at once contradicted, must of necessity affect the general reputation and character of the plaintiff, and she was entitled to something more than merely nominal damages. Judgment was entered for £SO damages, with court costs (£3 9s), witnesses’ expenses (£4 12s), and solicitor’s fee (£7 4s). a total of £65 ss.