CLAIM FOR £1500.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XLV, Issue 12228, 14 December 1920, Page 6

CLAIM FOR £ISOO.

A. LEIGH HUNT v. H. B. MAUNSELL At the hearing, of the above at Wellington, MrJT. Young appeared for plaintiff, and Sir John Findlay, K. 0., with him: Mr H. R. Hart, for defendant. S3STS3 Zln outlining the case gfor the claimant, Mr Young saiu that there had been a great deal of trouble over the elections in the company. After reviewing the charges, he maintained that after the election there had been a "campaign of calumny'' throughout the Wairarapa. Mr Justice Stringer: That's rather strong, Mr Young. Sir John Findlay: You can only state that from the statement of claim.

Mr Yonng said the plaintiff had denied all the allegations, nnd the defendant had subsided always when challenged as to any statement about Hunt. As to plaintiff's dismissal, counsel said he had been given a moment's notice—"he had to take up his hat and go." Hunt bad given years of efficient service to the company, and his discharge was a blow to his prestige that conld never be put right Four directors resigned after the plaintiff's discharge, and what greater reference for Hunt was there than that ? The jury's verdict should compensate the plaintiff for the losses he had suffered.

Arthur Leigh Hunt, land and estate agent, "and at one time general manager of the N.Z, Farmers' Cooperative Company, said he, when a small farmer, had commenced the company with a capital of £SOOO, being then secretary. The company 1 made losses at first, but finally made profits. Later, the capital was increased to £200,000 and to £210,000. His first salary was £3 9s 3d a week, and when he left he was receiving £IOOO a year and bonuses. Regarding the election referred to, he said seven of the directors lived in the Rangitikei district. In March, a canvasser had been sent to Masterton. and £30,000 had ..been collected with the object of having a bracoh there. Maunsell had, at abont that time, told him he was going to come out for election as a director from the Wairarapa. It was at this time that the first reference was made to the circular letters which were to be sent out. In the coarse of a letter to one of the candidates the plaintiff had said that he could not interfere in such matters, as it would not be right. Mobs had told him he was probably going to stand with Mannsell, and had referred to the circular, evidently not knowing how to S6nd it out. He had personally nothing to do with Moss's circular or with Sir James Wilson's circular. At a directors' meeting held before the annual meeting, at which Mannsell was not present, the matter of the latter's retirement was raised.

Sir John Findlay objected to any statements about a meeting at which Maunsell was not present. "It is an action against Maunsell, not against the company," he added.

2 His Honor thought that such evidence was admissible.

Sir John Findlay gtben contended that the meeting referred to had been private, in a private room of a hotel, and was not in any sense a meeting of shareholders, Continuing, witness said that the meeting of directors was more stormy than the meeting of shareholders. The question of dispensing with witness's services had at that stage been left in abeyance for some months. On February 11 a meeting, over which Sir James Wilson presided, was held in Wellington, and Mannsell then said the plaintiff had undertaken to issue a circular for him, and having undertaken it, had delayed it to enable Sir James Wilson's circular to gather up all the proxies. "He said it in such a way as to impute improper motives," said the witness. "I said it was untrue and the man who said it was a liar." Witness further said that the statements made by Maunsell had been taken down in the minutes of the meeting. "After I had got up, I don't think Mr Maunsell said anything, bat later in the meeting he said something else that showed the incident was in his mind still. Mr Moss said that Mannsell should have accepted my assurance that I had nothing to do with the circular. At the same meeting Messrs JBryoe and Whiteman spoke, the latter speaking in my favour, but the former handed over a typewritten statement, saying, 'You will see what the Wairarapa people think of Hunt.' When the directors met again, after a further extraordinary general meeting had been held, it was decided to dispense with my services, sending me a cheque for £SO and expressing appreciation of past servicts. . . An action

•gainst Broye was settled in the Supreme Court by the payment of cost*. The only tangible oharge against m 8 was one of interference in elections, although • some of the directors complained of the internal management,of the company. I hecame a land agent and sharebroker because I oould not start the same kind of business to which I was accustomed. I rind it hard to make headway, as I think, when I do business with a man, the question of my dismissal rankles in his missd." A VINDICATION SOUGHT.

Cross-examined by Sir John Findlay, witness said the other reason why he was dismissed was not because there had been a petition from Wanganui. There had been complaints against bis management, and he believed Mr Bryoe had influence! others against him Regarding other complaints alleged to have been made, witness said he remembered having had differences with stock agents and with the 'Wanganui branch manager, who wanted more latitude. He admitted having not visited branches because ho was too busy. • Counsel: You are here seeking a vindication? Witness: Yes.

Counsel: On February 18th you knew what it was alleged that Maunsell had said at Masterton ?

Witness: I knew at the meeting. |Sir John Findlay: Your first intimation that there was complaint against "him v>as delayed until August, seven mouths after. Do you think that was fair? Witness: I couldn't take two oases at once.

Sir John Findlay said that the

same statement had been made in the case against Bryce, who had made certain statements regarding the dismissal of the plaintiff. The case had'been settled and £6OO ;had been paid. Bryce having withdrawn all imputations made in that action Mr Yonng: Made by Bryce. Sir John Findlay: In that action. . . Don't yon think that when you have £6OO and a withdrawal to come again is asking a little too much? Witness: No, not when I am placed in the position I am at present. Sir John Findlay: You asked £3OOO and you received £600? Witness: I took it to save the company. Sir John Findlay: Yon play the Good Samaritan to the company that treated yon so abominably! . . Yon alao published Bryoe's apologies in several newspapers? Witness: Yes.

Witness also said that some months before the election Maunsell had spoken to him regarding the election of shareholders. Sir John Findlay suggested that witness had spoken to Maunsell about 18 months before, when he had spoken of the Wairarapa having representation on the Board. "Wasn't it your advice.to Maunsell that he would have to encounter opposition from the West Ooast shareholders?" asked counsel. Witness: Ido not remember. Sir John Findlay: Was it not Sir James Wilson's objeot in collecting proxies to defeat Bryce and Marshall?

Witness: "I knew nothing about that personally, only by hearsay. I swear that Maunsell never spoke of circularising shareholders in my presence, bat had disonssed the matter with Moss." He was not certain who drew ttp Sir James Wilson's circular, bat he thought it was the product ofgMr E. (J. Jack, Sir James Wilson, and himself. Sir James Wilson had alienated the sympathy of the Bangitikei people by promising to support Mr Mannsell.

Sir John Findlay: Then you wished Mr Maun sell to continue to stand for your own sake? Wi&uess: Certainly not!

Sir Jonh Findlay: Then you were taking an active part in the election of directors?

Witness : There was nothing* improper in the part I took. Witness admitted that the company had fulfilled its legal liabilities to him. Had it not been for the incriminating letter it was probable that the action would not have been brought. After further evidence relating to the statements and the sending ont of the circulars, Sir John Findlay asked for a nonsuit on the ground that there was no evidence of malice.

Mr Young argued that defendant ! ought to have known that the statements he had made were not true, as Moss had given an explanation, and the defendant had written on the subject. Sir John Findlay said'that. Mauasell had only tried to explain why at the last minute he had resigned from the candidature. He contended that the general manager and the chairman of directors had attempted to saoare the defeat of Bryce and Marshall. He afesed that a nonsuit be entered. His Honour said that the allegedly defamatory statements tad been made on occasions admittedly privileged. In that caße, the onus lay upon the plaintiff to prove that the privilege >"is abused, and that there was expivs'sed malice. The question was whether or net there was evidence to justify the jury, were the matter left in its hands, to find malice. "There must be substantial evidence," he added. "I must confess I cannot see any such evidence. " In reviewing the two statements on which the claim for damages was based, the Judge said that in the first instance there were grave doubts that the statement inferred that the plaintiff was guilty of impropriety. It was quite possible that Maonsell had quite forgotten the letter written by Hunt. In regard to the second statement, it would be too much to expect that in the minutes the defendant was exactly reported. It was true, moreover, that the chairman of directors and Hunt had arranged to "work it"—an unfortunate expression—to secure the return of Mannsell and Moss, and consequently the defeat of Bryce and Marshall. His Honour accordingly dismissed the jury, and entered a nonsuit, the usual order being made for costs. On the motion of Sir John Findlay costs were arranged for second counsel. ,