ALLEGATIONS OF SLANDER

Hawera Star, Volume LIII, 19 June 1933, Page 4

ALLEGATIONS OF SLANDER

CLAIM BY SALES ORGANISER. SIX DAYS FOR HEARING. (By Telegraph—Press Association.) - WELLINGTON, June 18. Five days had. already been occupied .ii tne supreme Court witJj the hearna of the action tor sianuer ■ Drought against Janies Dickson fcffevwright, re,i.ea journalist, Wellington, hy Reginald Chanes Boddie, sales organiser, u elLington. Tne claim is for £2500. the aneged slander concerns the conduct o.c the plaintiff in selling or pleading a- certain chemical formula to various persons. VViien the hearing was resumed on Saturdav G. A. mvwrene, analytical consulting chemist, said that rrom on analysis he had jnade of a Ciarogeuo preparation and the other preparation, Nauos, produced by the 'Christchurch, company, it was. obvious that the two products were manufactured from entirely different formulae. In answer to a question he said that the preparations contained the same f ngredients but not in the same proportions. Mr. O’Leary, addressing the Court, said that so far as the case in general was ooncerneu ne submitted that the proceedings had shown, to use plaintiff’s own words to Neill and Sievivright, that lie was a man with no reputation to lose. If. it came to an assessment of damages, then it was submitted taht plaintiff’s words could je applied, and he would not be entitled to any damages. Counsel further submitted that all the occasions of the alleged use of the word were occasions of qualified privilege. He submitted there was no evidence that the defendant used the occasions otherwise chan honestly. On another branch of the defence it was contended that it had. been proved that Boddie was a rogue and that what the defence set out to justify had been amplv justified. Mr. Eivans-feeott, counsel for Bodcile, in his address, submitted 1 that. the statements alleged by the plaintiff were clearly slanderous and that there was no justification for their use. It was contended among other things that it had been shown from the legal point of view that the formula taken over bv the Christchurch company and used by the company was not Boddie s ormula. , Dealing with the question ol privilege which he submitted did not exst, counsel said that if there was any aoubt about the matter it was des;roved bv the defendant’s conduct. Ithad been shown that he argued_that;he defendant acted maliciously. Qoun--el referred to testimonials as to Bod die’s character and to the evidence of witnesses who had sworn that m their dealings with the plaintiff they found Boddie an honest man. When the court adjourned Mr V.vans-Scott had not concluded his adire “s. The hearing will be resumed on Monday.