ANGRY MAJOR

Taranaki Daily News, 30 January 1934, Page 5

ANGRY MAJOR

IN A LONDON BUS £2OO SLANDER DAMAGES. SAID DRIVER WAS DRUNK. A jury in the King’s Bench Division, London, awarded £2OO damages to a London omnibus driver, formerly a public school boy, who sued a passenger, Major F. A. Menzies, of Piccadilly, for slander. Judgment was entered accordingly with costs. The major, who was alleged to have said that plaintiff was drunk, was sued by Mr. Humphrey Holl Evans, Braham Gardens, Kensington, who is 26 and was educated' at Felsted. The action arose out of an incident in Kensington on November 5, 1932. Plaintiff had joined the London Passenger Transport Board under a scheme whereby men intended for administrative posts received a course of instruction in the shops: and later secured experience as a conductor and as a driver. He had been driving for about five weeks when he was in • charge of an omnibus on the route between Victoria and Kensington High Street., TEARING RAGE. • Mr. R. C. Vaughan, for plaintiff, said that Major Menzies, who was a passenger, wanted to alight just when a policeman was waving to the driver to go over a crossing. The bus went to the next stop and the major got into a “tearing rage.” He complained to the conductor about the speed ,at which the bus was being driven and that women had nearly been thrown off. When the conductor pointed out that the service on the route was speeded up on Saturdays and Sundays defendant observed: “All rubbish. The driver’s drunk.” The major rushed off to fetch a policeman, who stopped the bus and ordered the driver to stand down. It was 12.30 in the afternoon, and the major told the policeman that the driver was drunk. “Plaintiff was stone-cold sober,” added counsel, “and when two police officers declared that he was perfectly sober the major said, ‘I agree.’ But he then complained that plaintiff had been driving past bus stops and starting with a jerk. The police asked other passengers if there were any complaints. There was complete silence.” A solicitor who had previously got off the ’bus came up.. “What’s all this rubbish this man is' complaining about?” he asked, and gave his address as a witness “in case the driver gets into trouble.” . Ultimately plaintiff was told he could drive away. Plaintiff then went into the witnessbox. ■’ • JUDGE- AND WITNESSES. Mr. Justice Charles' was informed that, by arrangement between the parties, the witnesses in the action were being kept out of Court. “Let all the witnesses come back into Court,” said the judge. “I will not tolerate an arrangement made behind my back in my Court. I have never heard anything like it in all my experience. It is a matter for my discretion.” Mr. J. W. Morris (for defendant): It never occurred to me— His Lordship: This is a matter of very grave importance. I hope it won’t occur again. A police officer said that Mr. Evans was quite sober when examined. A Mr. Israel, a passenger, said to witness: “I have never heard such rot as this man is complaining about.” No one complained about the driving. . , The Judge: They were willing to go on in this “madly-driven ’bus.” Wasn’t there a play called “The Case of the Frightened Lady,” and can that, with the alteration of one word, be applicable to this case? Mr Morris: Is your lordship implying that the major was frightened? Mr. Justice Charles: No one else seems to have been upset at all. Mr. Morris: There were others, but they had got off previously. Mrs. Sadie Scott told the Court she "took the risk of going all the way from the Ritz to her home at Richmond in the ’bus.” The Judge: And here you are to-day. (Laughter.) Mr. Morris submitted that the occasion was privileged, and that there was no evidence of malice. The Judge: Do you mean that a man who is stupid enough to make a serious charge and may say any nonsense is } always to be protected by saying he did it to protect people who didn’t want protecting? I suppose a man who is frightened when nobody else is frightened is entitled to say the driver is drunk ?

DEFENDANTS STORY. Defendant, in evidence, said he served throughout the war, was twice wounded, mentioned in dispatches and awarded the M.C. He had been a motorist for 30 years, and had driven one of the early racing , cars. The ’bus was being very violently driven, so that a lady who had just got up was thrown into his lap. He gave the lady his seat. Another lady had her head banged against the side of the ’bus. The Judge: But nobody seems to have complained.—Except me. > Don’t you think it funny or odd that people who had their heads banged didn’t complain ?—I don’t know what you mean by odd.. Defendant said he became slightly indignant with what he called the bullying of women. • The Judge: Who' by ?—By the man who caused- them to be flung on to the side of the ’bus. They didn’t seem to mind or complain. What business was it of yours ?—Unfortunately I have been unable to bring the ladies forward. Defendant added that he told the policeman, “I think you ought to look at that driver. .He is driving as though he is tight.” Afterwards he agreed the driver was “stone cold sober,” and said so. Major Menzies agreed in cross-exami-nation that, if an officer and a gentleman had wrongly charged a ’bus driver with being drunk, the first thing he would do on discovering his mistake would be to apologise. But he did not say the driver was drunk. Summing up, the judge said Major Menzies seemed to be an “interfering sort of fellow who set himself up as a protector of bullied women.” He had recklessly disregarded the proper thing to do if he thought he had any reason to complain, for he could have gone to the front of the ’bus and seen for himself that plaintiff was sober.