APPEAL IN SLANDER CASE

Taranaki Daily News, 13 April 1934, Page 7

APPEAL IN SLANDER CASE

LITIGATION AT WELLINGTON. SUM OF DAMAGES INCREASED. By Telegraph—Press Association. Wellington, r>ast Night The Court of Appeal to-day delivered reserved judgment allowing the appeal of Reginald Charles Boddie against James Dickson Sievwright, of Wellington, retired journalist. The appeal arose out of an action for slander brought by the appellant Boddie against the respondent Sievwright and heard before Mr. Justice Ostler last June. The appellant then made five allegations of slander, which fell into four groups. The first group comprised allegations that appellant had “taken down” a man called Lockyer, the respondent and a certain syndicate; the second that appellant had failed to account for certain moneys received by him on behalf of this syndicate; the third that he was dishonest, that the police were after him and that he ought to be in gaol; the fourth that he had been guilty of misrepresentation as a salesman. Respondent first denied the slanders alleged. He then pleaded they were not defamatory or had been spoken on a privileged occasion; and lastly alleged justification. This last plea was later abandoned as to one of the allegations. Mr. Justice Ostler held that three out of the five slanders had been established wholly or in part, but awarded in respect of these only the sum of one farthing each. He refused to allow costs to Boddie. Mr. Justice Herdman expressed the opinion that this was a case In which more than contemptuous damages should have been awarded in the court below. He agreed that damages and costs should be fixed as mentioned by Mr. Justice Kennedy, who in a long written judgment fixed the damages at £l6O, with costs in the Supreme Court according to scale on that amount, with disbursements, less costs to respondent, who succeeded in the lower court on the first cause of action and several parts of the other causes of action, and who should have costs of the trial in the Supreme Court as on a claim for £750.

Tire appellant was also allowed £25 solicitor’s expenses in connection with his appeal.