APPEAL FAILS

Waikato Times, Volume 120, Issue 20889, 22 August 1939, Page 7

APPEAL FAILS

SLANDER ACTION POSITION OF SECRETARY NO RIGHT TO RECOGNITION Union secretaries have no standing at a meeting of the Licensing Authority when matters hinging on the terms of licenses are being considered, and there is no reason why the Authority should recognise any pleas that secretaries of unions should offer, either as evidence or otherwise. The proper place to make allegations regarding breaches of awards is at a prosecution. That, briefly, was the view expressed by Mr Justice Blair, in the Supreme Court, Hamilton, yesterday aft ernoon, when holding that the Judgment delivered by Mr S. L. Paterson, S.M., on an action for damages for alleged slander was a fair and very thorough one. His Honour dismissed the appeal against the finding of the magistrate. £3O Damages Awarded The appellant in the appeal case was L. J. Matthews, secretary of the Auckland Drivers’ Union (Mr F. H. Jlaigh, Auckland), and the respondent, Claude Kendall, carrying contractor, of (Hamilton (Mr W. J. King, instructed by Mr A. G. Ward). The appeal was on fact and law on the magistrate's decision in an action heard in Hamilton for £IOO damages for alleged slander. Judgment given by the magistrate and upheld by His Honour was for £3O damages for Kendall. The original action had been brought against Matthews for alleged slanderous statements he had made atgainst Kendall at a public meeting of the No. 1 Licensing Authority in Hamilton. His Honour said ho could not see that Matthews had any right to be at the meeting making allegations or even statements. The matter was clearly one of terms of license, not a matter regarding breaches which could be heard in the form of a prosecution in the courts. His Honour did not agree with Mr Haigh that allegations regarding breaches of the award were relevant to the fixing of terms of ■ licenses. Even if the employer were breaking the award the matter should not have been taken into consideration in deliberating upon the terms of an extension of the license. The legislation clearly stated that licensees had to fulfil the terms of the award in whole, nothing more or less. In view of that the union could not make relevant representations. Not British Justice It was the opinion of His Honour that it was altogether contrary to the idea of British justice to suggest that award breaches should he taken into consideration by the Licensing Authority when considering the terms of a license. It looked as if Matthews was not there to oppose the granting of the extension of the license but merely to oppose the one man—Ken- ; dall. There was nothing creditable i about his performance and apparently . he was making use of the occasion j for an entirely separate purpose. That ; was the magistrate's view and it was | His Honour’s belief also. “A man who makes charges against a person at a public meeting ought to be guarded in the language he uses,” added His Hon-our. “I think Matthew’s wa 5 making the occasion a ‘stalking horse’ for making a charge later. That was grossly unfair. “Out on the Street” “Mr Haigh, I think you ought to tell your client to come to you for advice before he lets his tongue run away with him, or else he will find it a pretty expensive matter. The Authority seems to have given Matthews more latitude than I would. I should have put him out on the street.” His Honour did not consider there was any need to consider the question of privilege, although he heard Mr Haigh at some length in legal argument on the subject. He then dismissed the appeal.