A PLACARD WAR

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 18512, 8 March 1930, Page 21 (Supplement)

A PLACARD WAR

NEIGHBOURLY SHOPKEEPERS IN COURT. By Telegraph—Press Association. WELLINGTON. March 7. What Mr A. J. Mazengarb (counsel for appellant), described as a “placard war” between tradesmen occupying adjacent shops on the main road at Upper Hutt, was the subject of an appeal case heard at the Supreme Court by the Chief Justice (Sir M. Myers).

Mr Mazengarb stated th'at the appeal was on a matter of law and fact, from a decision given in the Lower Court in September by Mr T. B. McNeil, S.M., on a claim for £SO for libel, brought by Alexander Nelson Clark, draper, against John Vare, boot importer. Vars took exception to Clark occasionally selling boots as well as drapery, and when Clark put up a placard in liis shop advertising a sale of bankrupt stock of boots, Vare responded with a placard stating: “We do not sell bankrupt stock, but we sell under cost price.” Some time later, Clark placarded in his window a fire sale of boots, and Vare put up a placard: “Hutt war sale." On or about 30th January,. 1329, another placard shown by Clark was replied by Vare with a placard complained of: “One man, one trade, one wife.” That was regarded by Clark as attributing immoral conduct to him, it being admittedly common knowledge in the district that Clark was living apart from his wife and that his housekeeper was separated from her husband. The “placard war” had been going oil for three years or more. Clark took action for libel, and the Magistrate gave judgment in his favour with costs against Vare. That decision was now appealed against.

His Honour said it was plain in his opinion that the appeal must succeed. It was an appeal on a matter of fact and law, but the Magistrate seemed to have decided the case as a matter of law only, saying in his oral judgment that if it was before a judge and jury it w'ould be a case to withdraw from the jury. That, stated His Honour, was in his view erroneous. It was plain that the Judge would not have non-suited appellant and that ■ the question must have been submitted to the jury, who, in the circumstances, could only have come to the conclusion that the placard complained of was aimed against appellant. He had himself no doubt that they did bear the meaning attributed to them by appellant. He therefore upheld the appeal. It would be for the Magistrate to assess damages.