BODDIE-SIEVWRIGHT CASE

Stratford Evening Post, Volume III, Issue 30, 13 April 1934, Page 2

BODDIE-SIEVWRIGHT CASE

— o . DETAILS OF JUDGMENT

: Press Association—Copyright. | i _ Wellington. April 12. j | Iho Court of Appeal to-day delivered • j reserved' judgment allowing the appeal of j Reginald Charles Bocldie against James ! , Dickson Sicvwright, of Wellington, rer tired journalist. The appeal arose out ' °f an action for slander brought by the : appellant Bocldie against the respondent ' Sievwright and heard before Mr. Justice Ostler last June. The appellant then made five aliogaj lions of slander, which fell into four groups. The first group comprised alle- | gallons that appellant had “taken down" a man called Lockyer, the respondent and a certain syndicate; the second that appellant had failed to account for certain moneys received by him on behalf i of this syndicate; the third that he was , dishonest, that the police were after him ■ and that he ought to be in gaol; the I fourth that ho had been guilty of misI representation as a salesman, i Respondent first denied the slanders j alleged He then pleaded they wore not j defamatory or had been spoken on i j privileged occasion; and lastly alleged j justification. This last plea was later j abandoned as to one of the allegations. Mr. Justice Ostler held that three out | of the five slanders had been established wholly or in part, but awarded in respect of these only the sum of one j farthing each. He refused to allow costs j j to Boddic. • Mr. Justice Herd man expressed the ] j opinion that this was a ease in which j more than contemptuous damages should j have been awarded in the court below. | Ho agreed that damages and costs .should i be fixed as mentioned by Mr. Justice j Kennedy, who in a long written judgi ment fixed (lie damages at £l6O, with costs ; in the Supreme Court according to scale j on that amount, with disbursements, less ! costs to respondent, who succeeded in the lower court on the first cause of action and several parts of the other I causes of, action, and who should have j costs of the trial in the Supreme Court ns on a claim for £750. The appellant was also allowed £25 i solicitor’s expenses in connection with | his appeal. i • i