ALLEGATION OF SLANDER

Taranaki Daily News, 20 April 1929, Page 7

ALLEGATION OF SLANDER

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FAILS SCENE IN A RAHOTU STORE. WORDS USED NOT ACTIONABLE, A case in which a well-known Rahotu Native, Momona Thompson, sued Magnus Hughson, storekeeper, and a prominent resident of the same township, tor £3O damages for alleged slander was heard before Mr. R. W. Tate, SAL, at the Opunakc Court yesterday, but without hearing the defence the magistrate gave judgment for the defendant. 1 alleged slanderous words were: bet out you dirty mongrel! You boat this poor woman/’ Mr. L. A. Taylor, who appeared tor plaintiff, said that plaintiff’s brother, Petewai, died last August and Here Keri, who had been living with him, lodged an application before the Native Land Court for maintenance out of the estate.. Momona headed the opposition to the application, raising the point that Here Keri was not married according to European- custom and that she did not come under the provisions of the 1009 Act regarding marriage according to'Native custom, as the co-habitation had not taken place prior to that date. She was therefore not entitled to niaintcnce. The defendant had given evidence in her favour. After receiving notification that tlie legal objection had been upheld, plaintiff went into Hughson’s store to see defendant regarding his brother’s account and it was then, after some conversation regarding a mortgage, etc., that the alleged slander took place. Counsel claimed there was an innuendo .and that it was uttered in the presence of a number of people. Momona Tamihana gave evidence on the lines outlined by his counsel, adding that before leaving Rahotu to give evidence before the Native Land Court defendant had asked witness what business he had interfering in the matter, and witness said: ‘“Whose broth.r was Wetewai—me or you?” PLAINTIFF DESCRIBES SCENE. When witness received notification that judgment had been given against the widow lie called to see defendant with a view to coming to a settlement in regard to Wetewai. Decker, Bennett, Cousins and a girl clerk were in tne office, ail employees of Hughson. A plan was then submitted showing the store and the three offices. Defendant was standing in the first office but took witness into the. private office. Defendant said that he could put anything owing to the store on the mortgage that Wetewai had given, but witness said he did not think that could bo done. Defendant began to “get wild,” and witness went out into the main office. Defendant, however, called him back, but witness said they had better leave the matter as they could not settle it. Defendant said if it was put in the lawyer’s hands it would cost money. Witness, however, said that was nothing as he wanted the matter fixed up properly because the Native Trustee would not' pay anything - till witness eigned for it. Witness wanted to know about Mrs. V?etcwai’s account, and defendant said: “Go away you mongrel.” “Of course,” added witness, “I was not too well that day, having been in bed two days.” Mr. Taylor: Did ho whisper it? Witness: “I can tell that myself. Defendant came and put his hand on my shoulder and said, ‘Go out you blooming mongrel; you beat this poor woman.’ All the shop could hear it.” Witness then left the store and had never been back. Witness owed defendant some money and received a summons without notice.

Cross-examined by Mr. A. A. Bennett, witness said lie owed Hughson £3l at the time, and when defendant was angry he told witness he would sue him for it. The language was used on March 11, and the summons received on March 19. Witness instructed his solicitor to issue the summons on March 20.

Mr. Taylor: It is only fair to state that defendant insstructed me to take action on March 12.

DIVISION OF LAND. Continuing under cross-examination, witness said he did not know what letter his solicitors had sent. Witness, his three brothers and sister were entitled to the land on hie brother’s death arid witness had bought out their shares. The widow’s only chance of getting anything was by securing maintenance, but the Native Land Court upheld the objection that she was not the widow of Wetcwai according to Native custom. In further cross-examination witness said that defendant told him about the £66 mortgage which witness agreed was correct, but the account for stores was not covered by what his brother had signed.

To the magistrate, witness said he had gone to Hughson’s to find out about Mrs. Wetewai’s account but could not see her name in Hughson’s books, though the name of Here Keri appeared after the death of Wetewai. In re-examination witness said that he was advancing the money to buy his brother’s stock so that the debts could bo paid and any balance remaining would then be divided between the five successors.

Kupi, a Maori boy related to plaintiff, with whom he was now residing, deposed that he was standing outside the door of Hughson’s shop when he heard defendant say to Momona, “You beat the poor woman, you mongrel.” He also heard Hughson tell Momona to get out. He could not see them. Cross-examined, witness wuid he did not see Momona cQme out of the shop as he went away. SHOP ASSISTANT'S EVIDENCE. Raymond Janies Geeker, shop assistant at Raliotu for Hughson’s, Ltd., gave evidence that on the day in question he saw Momona being put out of the shop by defendant, lie supposed Hughson was angry, but Hughson had never been angry with witness. All he could remember was Hughson saying that plaintiff would be kicked out if he did not get out. Mr. Taylor: Now, Raymond, clear your brain up a little; just clarify it, and try if you cannot remember. Witness: I did not hear anything more. Mr. Taylor: Did you not see young Newport later in the day? Witnes: Yes, at the machine shop.

Mr. Taylor: You are on your oath. Do you deny that you repeated to Newport—’ Mr. Bennett: Your Worship, I object. This is cross-examination. Mr. Taylor said he wanted to establish the right to treat witness as hostile. Mr. Bennett held that no conversation between witness and another person was admissible unless defendant was present. To a further question witness said that he could not recollect any conversation. This concluded the case for the plaintiff. Mr. Bennett, in opening the defence, submitted that plaintiff must be nonsuited as it was evident that the case for slander was brought as a partial set-off against Hughson’s claim for his account. He submitted a table of dates in support, also pointing out that the claim for slander had been brought without giving defendant an opportunity to retract or explain. Counsel also submitted there should be a ’non-suit because there had been no evidence as to publication or as to damage. Moreover, words on Momona’s own admission did not constitute the imputation of a criminal offence. The burden, too, was on the plaintiff to establish that the meaning he assigned as an inuendo was the true meaning. Mr. Bennett Was proceeding to quote further authorities when the magistrate stated that he had been feeling all through the case the difficulty regarding “innuendo,” and also regarding publication. Mr. Taylor said the words being actionable per se, it was unnecessary to prove , damages. The first words were, he admitted, only, vulgar abuse, but their whole character was changed by the addition of the words, “You have beaten this poor woman.” The tone in which they were used and the action in putting plaintiff out of the shop all showed contempt at the attempt of plaintiff to get a improper verdict. He thought the court should consider whether the proper interpretation of the words was such as to bring plaintiff into contempt. Regarding publication, it had not been contraverted that the words were uttered in the presence of all the staff. He submitted authorities in support. The magistrate, in giving judgment for defendant with costs £3 3s, held that the words did not impute any criminal offence and therefore were not actionable per se, and without the evidence of special damage the plaintiff could not succeed.