SLANDER ACTION

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 136, 25 June 1937, Page 3

SLANDER ACTION

Our Own Correspondent.

Engineer's Allegation Against Board Member

From

WAIROA, Last Night. C. J. P. Dr'ewitt, electrical engineer to the Wairoa lJower Board, sued H. L. Harker, a member of the board,- for il75 In respect of two counts of alleged .slander. . Mr L. T. Burnard, of Gisborne, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr b. ifeaufoy, with him Mx .O'Malley, for defendant. Mr Bui-nard said tfee case hinged on two. alleged slanders uttered, against the plaintiff. The plaintiff was the eleetrieai engineer to the Power Board and .tlie defendant "was the Mayor of thc Borough.of Wairoa, and an aceountant of ability and capable of estimating the Values of the spoken word. Outiming the incidents that led up tp the action, he said that one utterance might and rnigfht not have been on a privileged occasion and the other certainly was not. Counsel proceeded to detail at considerable length the history of the relations between the board member and the engineer up to a certaiu date, from which the defendant, he alleged, was "chipping" at the plaintiff at every opportunity, adopting a hostile attitude during the whoJe oi a long period, against the engineer of the board, of wluch the former was a member. Counsel quoted especially the remark of the defendant when plaintiff submitted a report, and called it "Balderdash" and something else, the use of which word the chairman had called on defendant to withdraw. The defendant had throwu out a challenge to institute a full inqu'iry by an independent engineer. This the chairman did not aceept', and then defendant said that thq eyes of all were shut to the f'act that the money of the consumers was in jeopardy, and he then asked ior a report on th'e plant. Eventually, owing to the continued h'ostility shown to the board' s engineer, the latter had to institute proceedings. The first witness called was the plaintiff, who gave , 6vidence on the lines of the opehing remarks of his counsel. The defendant was hostile, he said, and he (witness), could not understand it — it all was done so suddenly nor was- he aware of anything he had done to deserve it. A good deal of the power board work was brought into review including the matter of his having allegedlv taken rouud a petition about a loan poli. The defendantwas so hostile that it caused the. plqintilf much worry and must,; necessarily, refiect on one's efficiency, He did not know oi anything he had done to deserve such hostility, . The witness was cross-examined at great length without eliciting anything oi great importance, witness declaring be had uo maliee towardo the defendant. He denied he had written to anyoue during the progress of the inquiry to say that- tbey had no tiine sheets in conuection with the board's work. and gave - eategorical denials to many of the counseTs questions. Tom Davey, a member of the Power Board, gave evidence as to the unpleasant atmosphero at -the Power Board meetings and generally voiced the view that the defendant had been hostile to the plairitifl". J. Corkill aud E. H Glendinning also gave evidence. / ; 'J'be cuse was udjourued.