£200 DAMAGES FOR LIBEL

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 125, 20 February 1919, Page 5

£200 DAMAGES FOR LIBEL

FARMER SUED BY FIELDS INSPECTOR

STRONG LANGUAGE

-■By TelerraDh—Press Association Ghristchurch, February 19. A reference to "a ivhisky soaking crawler" was one of the principal grounds of 'a libel-case heard -in the Supreme Court, before Mr; Justice Herdman. A Government official sued a wellknown. farmer, prominent in public matters in his district. The plaintiff was Cecil William Branigiui, of Ashburton, fields inspector under tlio Department of Agriculture, and the defendant George William T/eadlev, of Elgin,. Ashburton.Plaintiff claimed .£5Ol damages;

The 1 statement of claim/set out that in the course of his duty as fields inspector tie plaintiff , laid information against defendant for permitting Californian thistle to. remain uncut on his farm, and on that defendant was convicted by Mr. Day. -S.M.. r.wl itined '£5 on May 16, 1918. ■ The defendant, - it..! was alleged, in a letter addressed, to I\ S- Pope,' Secretary for .Verioulture, iWellinpton, falsely"and maliciously wrote 'and published to the said F. S. Pope and to other officers of the Department- of 'Agriculture, certain words vhifth..«'«re the' subiect of the action. Plaintiff | claimed that by the words, "Placing him .in power and <it. the - mercy of some whisky-soaking crawler, who probably never- did an honest day's work in his ' life," the defendant, referred to him, and meant that he was a drunkard and loafer* and unfitted. to hold his office of fields inspector, or any_ other responsible post. Therefore, plaintiff had been injured in ' his character and reputation, and had'suffered damage. ■ | In'the statement of defence.which had* 1 ] been'filed, the defendant-. said . thot lie] sent the' letter to 'Mr. Pope inadvo'r- ■. tently and- by mistake; without any in- j tention of so doing. It was accidentally | enolosed in the envelope containing « lei- j ter from defendant to' Mr. Pope in June, I 1918, by mistake, and. defendant had no intention of posting or publishing the letter. 'He denied, that the letter of May 16 was written and published -of i or concerned • the plaintiff. • T!o also I denied that the plaintiff had been in : ! jured in his character or rnoutaMpn ,by j reason of the letter, and denied that | he' had suffered damage. He apologised I for any defamation contained in the ! letter complained f.f, ami offered to write to Mr. Pope and Dr. 'ienkes, officers of the Department of Agriculture, regretting any statement made in the letter of May 1, withdrawing . iinmita- j tion made therein against . thii . plain tiff, and paying ahv TeasonabV. costs which plaintiff might have in-urrod in Consequence of' the ic'.t!>r. .. Defendant also paid into Court the smri of <t's; and said that that was sufficient reparation . to' the plaintiff for any injury le might have'sustained by reason of the letter. .•'

,The jury awarded plaintiff ,£2OO tlamages.