ALLEGED SLANDER.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XLI, Issue 11667, 12 September 1916, Page 5

ALLEGED SLANDER.

BARMAID SUES LICENSEE,

PLEA OF PRIVILEGE

Per Press Association. Auckland, Sept. 9. An action for alleged slander was beard by Mr C. 0. Kettle, S. M., in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, when Louisa Ferris, barmaid (Mr W. B. Hackett) sought to recover from D. .7. Cooper, licensee of the Shakespeare Hotel (Mr E. J. Prendergast), £IOO damages. In the statement of claim plaintiff alleged that defendant made two slanderous statements concerning her. Counsel for plantiff said that ia January last his client was a licensed barmaid in the employ of defendant. On a Monday morning, when plaintiff went to resume work, defendant met her and paid her off. She obtained work at the Thames flotel, and while she was employed there the defendant went to the proprietress/ Mrs O’Connor, and told her that he bad seen plaintiff taking money from his till, and he had to dismiss her for it Soon afterwards Mrs O’Connor dismissed her. Plaintiff complained of defendant’s action to the secretary of the Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Barmaids’ Union, and the secretary went to the defendant about the matter. The defendant told the secretary he had dismissed plaintiff for dishonesty, and said if there was any further bother about the matter he knew something more about her concerning the theft of some linen.' The plaintiff 'claimed £SO damages in respect to each of the statements made to Mrs „o’Connor and the secretary of the union. Evidence in support of counsel’s statement was given by plaintiff. She said she was a married woman with two children. She had not been in employment since her dismissal from the Thames Hotel. In answer to the magistrate, plaintiff denied that there was any troth in the accusations the defendant had made against her. / Defendant was called • by counsel for plaintiff, and gave the reasons, which, he said, caused him to dismiss the plaintiff, He offered no apology, and would not withdraw the statements he bad made to Mrs O’Connor or to the secretary of the union. Counsel for defendant pleaded qualified privilege. Mr Hackett contended that qualified privilege was lost by reason of the fact that malice had been shown by defendant. PLAINTIFF NONSUITED.

In giving a considered judgment. ~ this morning, bis Worship said he was satisfied, that defendant was honestly of the opinion at the time he made the statements to Mrs O’Connor and to the union score- ' tary, that they were true. The question then arose as to whetber.the - statements were legally clothed with qualified privilege, and, after considering the circumstances, he was of opinion that there was a qualified J privilege in each case. There was j a community of interest between ; defendant and Mrs O’Connor in { that both were licensed victuallers, i and, further, they were related; lie tacts that the union secretary sped j fically asked defendant about '.plain- 1 tiff and that he had a right to do so, as secretary of the union, on 1 whose books she was, also privileged ' the reply made by defendant. The only thing that could destroy such privilege in law was malice, and the onus was on plaintiff to show a _ wrong motive, ill-feeling, spite, or unreasoning prejudice. The plaintiff had hot done so, and consequently could hot succeed in her case. Whether or not plaintiff was guilty or innocent of what defendant helieved her to be guilty did not arise, as it was only a question of whether or not Cooper had made the state- ■ ment under an honest belief that it was true. PJaintiff would be nonsuited.