ALLEGATION OF SLANDER

Taranaki Daily News, 15 February 1933, Page 9

ALLEGATION OF SLANDER

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES HEARD TAILWAGGERS’ CLUB SECRETARY. VETERINARY SURGEON SUED. THE HEARING NOT CONCLUDED. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. A campaign of vilification toward him was alleged in the Supreme Court by Percival Rhys Wingrove, secretary of the Tailwaggers’ Club, to have been pursued against him by Fred Crossley, veterinary surgeon, from whom he claimed £450 for alleged slander. The case was heard by Sir Michael Myers and a jury. The statement of claim set out that the defendant at his residence falsely and maliciously spoke and published to Miss Edith Elizabeth Aitken,' a member of the club; the following words: “Do you know what sort of a man your secretary is? He was practically kicked out of a house for lifting a dog off the street to get a reward.” it is also alleged that Crossley went on to say: “He is well known in Newtown for that sort of thing. When a dog is lost people go to his house.” Crossley is then alleged to have asked “What about the clog-collecting affair?” and on Miss Aitken replying that" she "thought the club was benefiting from it, the defendant alleged “Wingrove makes a good thing out of that.” Miss Aitken said that she did not believe the-allega-tion contained in the words, and defendant allegedly replied, “Don’t tell me that when the man has a character like Wingrove’s. I have been to the Mayor and shown him Wingrove’s record.” It was further alleged that defendant called on Miss Aitken and, after referring to a letter received from plaintiff’s solicitors, exhibited to her a typewritten list of offences in respect of which he alleged that plaintiff had been convicted. The statement of claim also alleged that Crossley slandered Wingrove before Henry William Petre and his wife. The statement of defence denied that th words were used by Crossley or were capable of the meaning attributed to them. . i.-''. -■ Edith Elizabeth Aitken gave evidence along the lines of the statement of claim. QUESTION OF CHARACTER. Mr. Watson for the plaintiff asked witness if she knew Wingrove was a man of-general bad character and reputation. Witness asked counsel whether he was talking of the present or the past. The Chief Justice: Anyhow, what does it matter? Mr. Watson: I submit with respect and confidence that the plaintiff’s general character and reputation is a matter of vital importance in a libel action or slander action. The Chief Justice said he was not so sure; it might or" might' not be. Counsel, however, could put his question if - he liked.

Miss Aitken said she spoke of Wingrove as she knew him. He was a man of good character and reputation. ' Mr. Watson produced a slip of paper and asked witness if she had seen “this list of convictions.” Miss Aitken said she had been shown a list of convictions handed to her by Crossley. The convictions dated from 1921 to 1929. Witness said she did-not know WingrOve was still on probation when he formed the Tailwaggers’ Club. Henry William Petre gave evidence that Crossley had called on him and spoken to him about Wingrove. Mr. Watson said the Court had not heard whether Wingrove brought the action to vindicate his character or make money. One would expect a man to go into the box. If the jury was satisfied Wingrove had a bad reputation, even if the case were proved a small coin should meet the damages. The defendant would deny making the charges against Wingrove. _ ~ ■

Crossley in evidence gave instances of dogs being improperly treated for injuries by the club. Witness obtained a list of Wingrove’s convictions on December 23 and later decided to' go to various members of the club.

Cross-examined, Crossley said he secured the list of convictions from his son and checked themwith' the New Zealand Herald.

His Honour: I am sorry to hear, you have been using a list which must have been a breach of confidence. Answering Mr. Leicester Crossley said Wingrove was convicted 18 times. Mr. Leicester pointed out that eleven of the convictions concerned one time. Crossley had said the first offence was with regard to a woman. Why did he not say it was in connection with marrying a wife under age? His Honour remarked that the earlier impression conveyed was much worse than that.

The hearing was adjourned till tomorrow.