ALLEGED SLANDER MANDL v. HISLOP.

Horowhenua Chronicle, 4 May 1916, Page 2

ALLEGED SLANDER MANDL v. HISLOP.

Resjrrod judgment in the action f or alleged tSunder, I>r Maridl v. Dr ilislop, which wae hoard a£ the sitting of the Surpeme Court at Palmamton North, -was dielivered this -week, and J6 as follows:— 111 thus action the plaintiff claims to recover from the defendant tho sum of £500 by way of damages for certain defamatory words alleged to have been epoken by him in his professional capacity, on the 29th November, 1916. The words complained of are alleged to have "been spoken by the defendant to one Joseph Edward TVarringtora, a flaxmill hand at Shannon, whose wite the defendant was at the tho time .ittending professionally. They are thne set out in the plaintiff's statement of claim:— I think he (meaning the plaintiff) is the laefc doctor your should think of engaging. Wβ are *t ■war with Dt Maaidil. We are fighting Dr M&ndl because, he ii a German, ttnd another thing, Dr Mandl does not understand a case like this. The dofnedant by hie statement of defence denies' that he epoke these words. After referring to the mscterial t vidence at tho trial, the judge continues: The question is whether or not' tJie plaintiff has discharged tho onus which liee upon him of proving the utterance by tho defendant or the words charged in the statement of claim; In. my opinion ho has not. Tho plaintiff's case depends, of course, entirely upon Wai-rington's evidence. in the early part of the evidence Warringkm ftx€>d th« deefndant's first visit to Mrs Warririgton as having taken place on Saturday, the 27th November, b'ut he presently changed the date, apparently unconsciously, to Friday,' the 2&th ■November, giving details oi what happened on every succeeding day up to and inclusive of Monday, 29th November. There appears io be no doubt that the date first given wae correctTh is may not be of any greet importnnce, but it shows that the witness' evidence cannot be relied on as "strictly accurate." The letter of the sth January. 1916, from the plaintiff's eolicitor to tlie defendant shows that the slander charged in the statement of claim is based upon a writtten statement by Warrington which gave the actual words alleged to hare been aeed by the defendant. If, uowever, Warrington's evidence "upon thie point is compared with the words set out on the statement of claim, it will be found £liat, although slanderous'words to the same effect appear both' in \V arrington's evidence, and in the statement made by him to the plamtiif's solicitor, there are euch discrepancies between them that complete accuracy cannot be relied; upon. ."or example, in the written statement made by Warrington to the plaintiff's solicitor and reproduced in the etatoinent of claim, the defendant is rep«resented ae having said in. on? coneecutive sentence. "We are all fighting Dr Mandl because he is a Germ-in, and another thing, Dr \landl does not understand a case like thie." 'n Wa-rringtou's evidence he deposed that the 6tatem«mt, "\\e are all at war with Dr Mandl because Be is a German," was separated irom the assertion attributed to the defeneaot, "Well get Dr Mandl if you like, l>ut Dγ Mandl does not understand a case liko tf1ii5123456 123450 of this kind," by Warrington'e explanation ol wonderful cures whicn had been peiformed by Dr Mandl. it is, therefore, in. my opinion, plain that Warrington's evidence cannot be vein d upon as strictly accurate, and in view of the defendant's explanation oi what he alleges really did occur, it appears to me that to justify me in hold, ing the plaintiff's carse to be proved, I must bo satisfied that VVarringWs evidence is strictly accurate. While not to suggest that Warrington, in his evidence, consciously departed from the irifßi. it is, in my opinion, plain that he is a. hot partisan of the plaintiff. As between 'his evidence and the defendant's, T think the defendant's is more credible, and I believe it. The defendant must therefore hare judgment with ooete according to ecale.