ALLEGED SLANDER

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18547, 6 November 1934, Page 12

ALLEGED SLANDER

HOTELKEEPER IN COURT PORTER’S ACTION NONSUITED Damages amounting to Ju2£>o were claimed m an action for alleged slander | lieard before Mr. Justice b air in tiiej Auckland Supreme Court. The plaintiff was George Wakelin, formerly a hotel' employee, but now unemployed, and the defendant 0. Garland, hotel proprietor, of Auckland. Plaintiff was represented by Mr. Jlaigh, while Mr. Finlay appeared for the defendant. Mr. Haigh said the case was an action for alleged slander brought by. plaintiff for the purpose of vindicating his character. The action was based on an accusation of theft allegedly made by the defendant against plaintiff while the latter was in lus employ us a porter. The defendant had made no effort to apologise for the statement, or justify it. At a later date it was alleged the defendant had repeated the statement to a complete stranger. Counsel emphasised that tiie accusations were untrue. The defence was a denial that the words had been used, and that if they were used, they were privileged. The plaintiff, in evidence, said he was married and 25 years of agio. While he was employed at defendant’s hotel defendant had told him a flask of ■ whisky valued at 3s 9d was missing and that he would have to make up file deficiency. Witness denied all responsibility. Later defendant had said to him: “You might not think it, but you have been overstopping the law.” Witness asked him what lie meant and defendant said it was about Mis, Garland’s purse, and that he was suspected of stealing it. Witness denied the. truth of the allegation and

said lie knew nothing about the purse. Following legal argument His Honor delivered judgment upon a 11011-suit point raised by Mr. Finlay. He held that the occasion when the words in the allegation' were used, if used at all, was a. privileged one. His Honor also held-that in the circumstances it had not .been shown that there was sufficient evidence of malice to warrant the question being decided by the jury. . The ease was withdrawn from the. jury and the defendant’s action for a nonsuit was granted. Costs were awarded the defendant.