JUDGMENT FOR STUART

Taranaki Daily News, 19 January 1933, Page 3

JUDGMENT FOR STUART

CLAIM FOR SLANDER FAILS ECHO OF A COUNTY ELECTION. ' INGLEWOOD CHAIRMEN DIFFER. , END OF PROTRACTED CASE. “In my opinion, the evidence adduced does not prove the slanders alleged in the statement of claim—m other words, the evidence adduced does not prove that Stuart published concerning Corkill words imputing that Corkill had availed himself of his office to obtain an improper advantage for ° T imputing to Corkill want of integrity or dishonesty in the discharge of his sad Mr. R. W. Tate, S.M., in the New Plymouth Court yesterday when delivering judgment in favour of Robert .Stuart, Dudley Road, Inglewood, the d e^ n dant in the case in which Alfred Corkill, formerly a member and chairman of the Inglewood County Council, sued Stuart, the present chairman, for slander. Mr. A. Coleman appeared for Corkill.and Mr. L. M. Moss for Stuart; The question of costs was left ovei, settlement to be arranged by c °^ el ’ The plaintiff’s statement of claim was about May 6, 1932 the defendant falsely and maliciously spoke Lid published of the plaintiff to Harold Richard Marsh and John William Henwood and others whose names are at present unknown to the plaintiff the fol-, lowing words, that is to say.— (a) Corkill took county men off the roads to do work on his private roadway on his farm and eight cases of-county benzine were given to the-men to get to and from the farm. . .. - (b) Corkill was representing the West Riding where h? had no interests. All his interests lay in the North Riding, and for that reason moneys were taken from the West Riding and sp ent in the-North Riding. Work was almost stopped in the West Riding and the. money spent in the North Riding where he benefited. ■(c) The council had authorised £3o to be expended in metalling four chains of the Kupara Road, but Corkill had 16 chains metalled for the benefit of his own supporters on that road—Stachurski and 'others. . . ... _ (d) Corkill had the bridge on the Ta-riki-Road built, out of riding funds instead of raising a special loan, and this was for the benefit , of Henry. Jones because he was a supporter of .Corkill. - (e);The chairman had side-tracked' unwork ■on the top of the • Dudley Road and -in stead had been to Wellington on several occasions to see the Minister to have the Tarata-Saddle deviated within a mile of;his own farm. He advocated the deviation-in order to benefit his own farm. ; // ■ ; . (2) On -or about. May/7,. 1932, .the ; defendant . falsely- .and ; malicjoiisly spoke and published of: -the plaintiff to F. J. Hodges and ' others--whose < names are at present' unknown to the' -plaintiff' the words following:;- • ' • • : /(a), The chairman took money . from the Wert '.Riding and ;; -had. it expended in the. North Riding because his-interests lay chiefly, in the latter riding. (b) - That 'Corkill took'county surfacemen at Purangi offthe roads to-work, on Corkill’s farm at .Tarata and that eight cases of county benzine were, supplied to him to enable him to- travel to and from the farm. . . .., - : (<•) The words set out', in; paragraph 1 (b) (c) and (d) aforesaid. (3) On or about Jifcty'9, 1932 the defendant falsely and maliciously spoke and published of - the plaintiff to Charles Young and others whose names are at present unknown to the - plaintiff the words 'following:— : '■ • ■' . (a) Corkill had not any interest in the West Riding. He lived in the North Riding and therefore could not conscientiously do. his duty to ratepayers of the West Riding. (b) The words set out in paragraph 1 (d) aforesaid. PLAINTIFF THEN CHAIRMAN. (4) At the time the said words were so falsely and maliciously spoken and published the plaintiff was chairman of the Inglewood County Council, and had been chairman for some years, and he said words were spoken of the plaintiff in relation to such office. (5) By the said words the defendant meant and was understood to mean that the plaintiff used his office influence and authority as county chairman for his own private benefit and for.the private benefit of his friends and' supporters' and not for the public interest.-’ : (6) The plaintiff in consequence was much injured in his credit and reputation and was defeated in the election of councillors (at which he was a candidate for the North Riding) Tor. the county of Inglewood held immediately after the said publications. For these alleged slanders • the plaintiff claimed: (1) Special damages for loss of office as county chairman, £25; (2) general damages' £100; in all, £125.' ■ The following innuendoes were; filed:— Innuendo to.l (a) and t 0.2 (b): Meaning thereby that, it was improper , and a breach-of duty on Corkill’s part to take the county men off the. roads to do work on his /private roadway and that the eight cases of - benzine were given with his consent and/or-, knowledge. aiid/pr by his authority. '.-

Innuendo to 1 (b) and to 2 (a):.Meaning thereby that the plaintiff caused county funds to be expended for his own personal, benefit and not because such expenditure was in the. public interest. Innuendo to 1 (c):. Meaning thereby, that, the plaintiff had. the. additional metalling done with'the object of benefiting his supporters and not because such expenditure was ■ otherwise justified and in the public interest. Innuendo to 1 (d): Moaning thereby that in so doing the; plaintiff ; was actuated by a desire to benefit the said Henry Jones who was his friend and supporter and not because it was-otherwise a proper, thing or in the public interest so to build the said bridge out of riding funds. Innuendo to. 1 (e): Meaning thereby that the plaintiff endeavoured to have the said deviation. made in order to obtain a ’ personal,benefit there by and not because such deviation was in the public interest. POLITICS OF .THE COUNTY. The ■ politics of the county - of Inglewood : had hitherto been conducted on strictly party lines, one party led by the plaintiff and z the other? by the defendant, said Mr. Tate, in delivering judgment. In 1920.-24 the- Corkill party, comprised the “iris” and the Stuart party the “outs.”. The ■ Stuart party. was in. the ascendant from 1924 to 1929. Since 1929 the Corkill party had'governed the County of Inglewood and-the election of May, 1932, was to decide whether that party was to con-; tinue to rule, or not. According to Mr. Baldwin’s appreciation of the situation, “Stuart objected to -the way the council was dominated by Corkill, a: one-man show. No matter what came up, if. Corkill wanted it done it was done. He kept the opposition' in their place.” » Stuart decided to address the electors, a course which seemed to have surprised the plaintiff, but it was a course which Stuart had indicated as far back as May 28, 1930, as the proper course to adopt, and he did address the electors on May 6, 7 and .9, on. which ocacsions the plaintiff alleged he slandered him in

the words set out in the statement of claim. • / ; . -.- , At that time Corkill was : chairman of the Inglewood County Council,-; afld 35 such held.an office of. honour... Mr. Tate did-not think it could be regarded as an office of; profit. To succeed in the' action plaintiff had to, prove that - the defendant published words imputing to him want of integrity or dishonesty in the discharge of his office as chairman. If he proved that he was entitled to succeed vrithput proof of special damage. The. words alleged to have been published bn May 6 at Stuartls Dudley Road meeting were set out in the, statement of claim; they substantially included those alleged to have beeff published on May 7 and 9 and the whole of the allegations for reference purposes could be conveniently suir-iarised as follows: — la. As ’to the plaintiff’s improper use of county men on his own roadway and as to the improper use of county benzine By them. ■ ■ lb. As to the plaintiff’s improper preference for expenditure in the north riding. lc. As to the metalling of Kupara Road for the benefit of his supporters. ld. As to the building of the Tariki Road bridge, for the benefit of a supporter. le. As to the Tarata Saddle deviation for the benefit of his own farm. NOTES TAKEN AT MEETING. The words or statements themselves as alleged in. the statement of claim were the text of notes made by Mr. Marsh. The correctness of those notes was a matter of vital importance. Marsh had been a strong opponent of Stuart, and as far back as 1925 adversely criticised him and his council in newspaper 1 correspondence. He was not an independent person, but a partisan. He went to the meeting, heard two and a half hours’ criticism of a multitude of county matters, and when he had returned home, which was at least an hour after the meeting, he made his notes. He said: “When I got home these statements struck me so that I took a note of them at my desk.” Each statement’represented Stuart as imputing dishonesty or impropriety to Corkill. Marsh was a'friend arid prominent supporter ’of Corkill, but he made-no protest j to Stuart; after the meeting, though lie met • hitti and was quite friendly with hiiri.Tt was when he gbt home that the-statements'“struck him.’? : ■- ■

“I am satisfied that he recalled something of what Stuart had said upon certain matters, added His; 'own.-inferences and constructed the statements- which appear in the statemerit'of claim as statements actually made by Stuart,” continued the magistrate. “In one statement at least ;the statement is riot even in accordance with the facts that Stuart must, have used.-. He dees not seem to have realised the great difficulty that even an-impartial.man would have had in setting out correctly, ■ an hour after the meeting, portions of what was said in the course of two and a- half hours’ criticism of county matters. I am quite unable to accept Marsh’s statements as a correct report ■ of ;■ the words used by Stuart.”- 1 -. The next . morning he had taken the statements to Corkill and, smarting under the ..injuries .he , tho.uglit 1 Stuart had inflidted -upon hiin, . Corkill also ernbarked on an electoral campaign and held meetings on May 9 and 10.' 'At those meetings he adopted/the course: of reading out: the . Marah - statements -, and asking if they", had/been ' made '/bty Sitiart. At his first meeting, May 9, no one made objection to; <ir denial .of 'any.. of the statements.;' At his second meeting on May 10, Shields, -thinking' he - was invited to do so, commenced, to correct’him, but was rebuked for interruption and relapsed into silerice.- - -The; rertilt was that ’Cbrkill. learned nothing and-' went on believing', that Marsh’s statements correctly recorded what .had; Been said by the defendant. ‘' ’ ' ' . . .INFLUENCE .■ OF STATEMENTS. “I have carefully considered the, whole of the evidence, arid I find some of the plaintiff’s Witnesses to be so obviously influenced by the Marsh statements, which had been ; communicated, to . them, as to be; unconvincing, ’’ continued the judgment. ’ .' ' •. ' . , “The defendant’s witnesses categorically denied that: the alleged words were published or. that, defamatory; statements were made, bearing out what Marsh said on-cross-examination: Tt.,would not surprise me to know that other men at the meetings did ■ not;take the same meaning from Stuart’s statements as X did.’ “The evidence of Stuart showed .that he discussed the subject matter of the administrative incidents referred to in the allegations and: that he trenchantly criticised the administration of Corkill as chairman of the county. He said that he used , the same notes and said the same things at each meeting. He denied using the words complained of in the statement, of claim imputing dishonesty or want of integrity to . Corkill, 'and denied,that what.he did say meant or could be understood to mean that he imputed any such want of integrity or dishonesty. “It is time that Corkill took a county surfaceman off the, roads to do work on his private roadway on his. farm. It appears that it was riot uncommon to allow, surfacemen to do ; such work as haymaking arid contracting work at the expense of those who employed them and so to- reduce the county’s - expenditure. Whatever virtue of economy there may be in this practice it is obvious that any chairman or councillor employing such a‘man lays himself open to severe criticism if the man. employed could not properly be spared'from county work. That was the case in this instance'and'Corkill, who ■ paid .-the man himself and got no other advantage than' the ■ services of a skilled workman, cannot complain of criticism'. Stuart did not impute dishonesty -. to Corkill. He attacked the practice, of taking off the county roads men , who. could not be spared from the county road work. < - ; - THE BENZINE INCIDENT. “The benzine .incident was discussed by Stuart separately from the roadijiak--ing, and the two were joined in Marsh’s notes. It is . true, the surfaceman got eight cases of benzine (one a month) to go to and from his work, and while he was working for Cqfkill he was,, -using this benzine. Corkill did ,not.,know of it and Stuart did not know of it; the issue- was authorised- by Councillor Grieve, who. forgot to report it. A new engineer found that -.the issue;.jras'.being inade, reported it to Corkill, and the issue was stopped.' The issue commenced shortly before the end of Stuart’s last chairmanship : and continued for some time • during;; : ; Corkill’s ' chairmanship, which followed. .'

- “That each was,ignorant of the issue,” said Mr. Tate, “does not show ybtyr close control in - the administration of; either. Stuart did not impute dishonesty to Corkill. He attacked; the lax/administration under which such an issue of benzine was ’ possible.” ’ “Corkill represented the west riding and. owned property in the west riding,” Mr.-Tate continued. “He also owned property in the north, riding :on . Which he lived. The allegation that he took money from the west riding and spent it in the north riding where he benefited is difficult to. understand -as both. plaintiff and defendant agree that it could not be done. Corkill said it was impossible and illegal. Stuart said Corkill could not have done it if he had tried on account of the manner in which the county accounts are kept. It is. clear that Corkill did not do it. Stuart did not impute want of integrity to Corkill.. . . ' ' “It was agreed that if the Stachurski boys helped to spread metal oyer four. : chains of bad roadway on the Kupara

1 ■ ; . - ■ : . ,■ - - ’ / ■ ■■. / '■/ - '/-:/■ Road the council Would,'metal'ij;'.tan,<i/»O was estimated to cost £36. . Before it was done there .was a change'of,county - engineers and the new engineer, be- . lieving that a Public Works Departaentgjj: authority existed, upon which a’ sub-. Sidy would be paid, metalled -16 chains. If the authority “had .existed; the. wort,';' with the subsidy,, would have cost the. council little more than £36. After work was done it was forind authority did not exist, no subsidy wm obtained, and 'the work cost the/’county, £lO3 10s. 7d. as disclosed in eer’s report of May 4, 1931’,.0n both Corkill and Stuart knew; or’should have known, the. precise position.lt./ was not true that Corkill'- had :16 metalled for the. benefit, of his-.support’ . ers; he knew nothing of it until' it '■,wak->; done. -What Stuart attacked ■ was;? yi«// execution .of work without authority*- ;; He did not impute dishonesty ;to kill. ' .' ~2 “The Tariki Road bridge was not punt ■ at the time Marsh; framed "^the'statement* ; , Corkill seems to have- coriceived;;it andprobably . made • the financial commit-; ments. Tenders: were not called .and’ the 7 bridge was not built until after Stuari?^, became chairman in 1932.. It w<s the bridge that Stuart attacked, hilt' Mr ? manner of building it out of riding funds-. instead of by special -loan. The tion was obviously based on incorrect ' facts. Stuart did not impute want. of integrity to Corkill. ' . ■ s la ' “In the next allegation Marsh / mixed/. up several subjects,” continued Mr.'Tate*;, “Beyond the facts that there was a Tarata,'/. J Saddle deviation in the air and that the deviation would necessarily provide./, nearer and better access for Corkilis farm I cannot set out the. facts on it was based. Stuart attacked the devia«?£ tion because it woffid. impose a new--maintenance liability on the 'county, he did not impute want of ■ integrity tp/fe Corkill.”..