DOMINION ITEMS.

Hokitika Guardian, 6 November 1925, Page 4

DOMINION ITEMS.

[by TELEGRAPH PER PRESS ASSOCIATION.I DIVORCE DAMAGES. AUCKLAND, Nov. I. 1 i-i Hie Supreme Court in an action for diioree with a claim for £GiKI damages. Joseph Henry Lomas being petitioner. Jane Lomas respondent and A then Lynch co-i'o-pomlont, the jury found that there had been misconduct and awareded petitioner £17)0 damages. Mr Justice Headman entered judgment .'ireordiiigly with a decree nisi.

A NARROW ESCAPE. WHAXGAREI. Nov. 1. As the express trnin was entering the Hukeremii railway station a muuhei- (.!' children who hail been playing on ilu> track iliinhod cm to the platform, lea tiny: an infant girl exposed to the imminent risk of death. '1 he engine-driver ohserved tlie dancer just in time to pull the train up within ten feet of tin- child by promptly applying the brakes and using sand to provent the wheels slipping.

SECOND RHODES .SCHOLARSHIP WELLINGTON. Nov. 5.

The Registrar of the University of New Zealand to-day received a eablo front the Rhodes Club announcing it had been decided to award a second scholarship to Now Zealand, and two scholarships will he awarded this year. The four University Colleges wilT he asked to nominate a second candidate before the meeting of the Hoard of Selection on the 2-lth. inst.

AUCKLAND LIBEL ACTION. AUCKLAND. Nov. 5. An action for alleged libel with damages assessed at five thousand pounds was commenced in the Supremo Court before Air .Justice Herdman and a jury of twelve. .John Ignatius Fox. organiser of the New Zealand Dairy Farmers' Cnion. is the plaintiff, and William Goodfellow. managing director of the New Zealand Co-operative Dairy Coy.. Hamilton is the defendant. The statement of the claim alleges that on July 2nd. 1925, at Hamilton, defendant falsely and maliciously spoke

and published tu J. G. AN ynyard, of To Avafmitu, farmer. and agent <>• the plaintiff. tlio following words: *‘ Ti Fox had his rights lio would havo In on shoL twite ns a s)’.y.’’ On July 1 I ill. lil'2-A. il was alleged clcfendnnt maliciously published tiio following: “Fox was t wjoo reported as a soy." Further allocations were that defondani had stated : William Hansford reported Fox to the authorities as a probable s p\. A very clumsy policeman was put mi to shadow Fox. who suddenly became very careful, and did not give himself away. William Funstead next met Fox at (lallipoli. where Fox was engaged as a cook tit headquarters. This mis a position where lie could set a lor of useful information. W. Ilanstead reported him again v. ith the result that, he was shipped hack to New Zealand. The defence is privilege. .Afr Seymour, for the plaintiff, stated Fox was induced to go to the AA'nilcato to organise for. the AVaikato Dairy Farmers’ Union, which was a separate and distinct organisation from the Tec Zealand Co-operative Dairy Company, of which Coodteiiow was the Afanaging Director. Air Seymour said there was. in fact, a war on between the Dairy Company and the Union. Counsel remarked: “He says that Goodfellow, deeming that Fox was there to injure him, deliberately set out to blackmail Fox out of the AA’aikatol I say it to Goodfellow’s face that libel, slander, and blackmail are usual weapons of his. He has been at the same thing before." Sir John Findlay here interposed with an objection. Kvidence was given in support of he statement of claim, and the ease was adjourned until to-morrow.