DAMAGES FOR LIBEL

Taranaki Daily News, 13 August 1930, Page 3

DAMAGES FOR LIBEL

■ ENGINEER AWARDED £515 TWO COMPANIES SUED. QUARTERLY DIVIDENDS, LTD. Damages amounting to £515 were awarded in the Supreme Court at Dunedin on Monday by Mr. Justice Kennedy in a case in which Daniel Moir, engineer, of Kaikorai, proceeded against Quarterly Dividends, Limited, and National House Purchase, Limited, for £B5O damages for alleged libel and slander. Portion of the statement of claim set out that in November last David N. Johnston, a local secretary of the com--panies for New Zealand, had been convicted iu Invercargill of false pretences and that at the trial plaintiff was one of four witnesses who gave extensive, important and material evidence for the prosecution. On February 16, 1930, William Taverner, acting with the authority of defendant, falsely and maliciously published concerning plaintiff a circular letter in which he accused plaintiff and the other three witnesses of perjuring themselves at the trial. Other claims, were made in respect. of letters sent by Taverner’s wife to members of the scheme, accusing plaintiff of embezzlement and theft, and also in respect of a statement made by Taverner at a meeting of subscribers that plaintiff had been guilty of theft and perjury. The action was not defended, but mention was made of a letter, in which Taverner stated that he had been called land and were carrying on financial operation to his wife’s teeth and asking for an adjournment for a year. Mr. W. G. Hay and Mr. J. N. Thpmson appeared for the plaintiff. Mr. Hay said the claim was made against two companies, the Quarterly Dividends, Limited, and National House Purchase, Limited, whose names had already been before the Court. Tbo companies had been incorporated in England and were carrying on fniancal operations in New Zealand. The defendants had not thought fit to file a statement of defence, although they had had ample opportunity to do so. Taverner had originally been a director of the companies and held power of attorney for them in New Zealand. The writ had been served about the end of June and Taverner had actually come to Dunedin with a barrister from Auckland to do something. He had. endeavoured to force a settlement but the plaintiff had refused to'have anything to do with it. That had occurred early in July and nothing had been done since. Taverner said that he had been called away to England, inferring that his wife was ill, and suggesting that the case be adjourned for a year so that he could defend it when he returned after his wife had recovered from' an operation to her teeth. There was some talk of a private counter-claim. Outside this there appeared to be no defence, continued counsel. The action arose from a libel published by the authority of- the company through Taverner and his wife, the latter acting as secretary. QUESTION BY HIS HONOUR. His Honour:' Is this the lady whose teeth are supposed to have been extracted? Mr. .Hay replied that it was. The allegation made by the defendants was that the plaintiff had perjured himself. A circular letter had been extensively published in which the following statement appeared: “Mr, Johnston was convicted and sentenced and only through deliberate perjury of four oh. the Crown witnesses.” In subsequent letters sent to members Mrs. Tavernier definitely stated that the plaintiff had received

sums of £209 and £2lO in terms requiring him to account for them. ,and had converted them to his own use. For each of these letters £5O damages was claimed. Then the defendants published a letter to a man named Milne, in which they stated that Moir had . failed to account for money handed to him, said Mr. Hay, and in which the following statement was included: “He has stolen £209 as far as we can trace.” For this £2OO damages was claimed. Then Tav-. erner said at a meeting that Moir had committed perjury and stolen about £205 of the company’s money and that he was to take action to recover the amount. DELIBERATE AND MALICIOUS LIBEL There had been deliberate and malicious libel, Mr. Hay added. The companies had charged Moir with embezzlement, theft and perjury. This had not been done in the form of abuse, but definite statements had been made with the intention that those who heard them should act upon them.- Moir in 1917Aiad become interested in. the scheme and for some months had been attracted by it. In May, 1925, he had received a balancesheet and his suspicions - had ; been aroused. He had thought that a depositor might very well lose ■ a considerable sum of money. In September of the same year Taverner, who was then Attorney for New Zealand, had come to Dunedin and Moir had expressed his suspicions. Finally it had been decided to call a public meeting, at which Taverner was to explain the operations of the' companies. Moir had occupied the chair and after -hearing the address had been disgusted to find that a statemerit' regarding ' the period of a loan did not agree with a letter which he had in his hands. Moir had stood up and said that the scheme was not fitted to Now Zealand condi-. tions and he had also challenged Taverner with making contradietdry statements with regard to the period of loans. ■ ACTION BY AUTHORITIES. Shortly afterwards Taverner had addressed a meeting of subscribers at . which Moir had been present, continued Mr. Hay. ■ Taverner had endeavoured to induce Moir to sign a letter to the Press, in which he was to withdraw his statements. Moir had declined to sign. Moir had done his best to prevent people from joining until everything was cleared up. In October Moir had been expelled through the instrumentality of Taverner. Finally the attention of the authorities had been drawn to the operations of the companies. The police had taken the matter up and a prosecution had been brought against the local secretary, who had been convicted of obtairi- . ing money by false pretences. Taverner had come to New Zealand again, arriving in May of this year. At a meeting of depositors he had made the deliberate statement that Moir was a perjurer and a thief. Moir had taken action in an endeavour to overtake the libels and vindicate his character. It had all been done for the purpose of /working to the companies’ advantage with regard to a financial, scheme by which people were to get rich quick. The plaintiff gave evidence along' the lines of Mr. Hay’s address. ■ ' In giving judgment His Honour said the defendants had filed no defence and the action was tried accordingly for the purpose of assessing damages.. Judgment would be given for £sla, with costs according to scale.