LIBEL ACTION.

Hokitika Guardian, 7 November 1925, Page 1

LIBEL ACTION.

jyuY TELEGRAPH —PER PRESS ASSOCIATION.] AUCKLAND, Nov, G. Later defendant stated ho had been associated with tho New Zealand Cooperative Dairy Company for seventeen years. The Company’s business had been built up largely through his efforts. His company, owing to its size, was a distinct obstacle to the opponents of absolute control. They bad, therefore, attacked tho company by ad vocatiug tho ward system of electing members to tho Control Board. If they could secure tho return of ward members, pledged against absolute control, it might be possible to avert, the introduction of the latter. He agreed with Mr Seymour’s description of tho dispute as “open war.” Tho attack had been not only against absolute control. but- also against bis company, with the object of disintegrating it, and against himself.

’l"he witness admitted that he bad made statements about Fox at an inquiry into Sinclair s allegations, against his company. Ho mado them, believing they would he regarded as strictly confidential.

John Robert Fox, Mayor of Hamilton. and one of the tribunal which inquired into Sinclair’s charges, said that Good fellow, so far as be recollected did not say that Fox. if be had been served right, would have lieen slmt twice as a "spy. He did not say that Fox had I icon twice reported a. spy. This was in answer to a question by witness. Tn addressing the jury. Sir John Findlay .submitted that the allegations ngainsl Fox bad been mado bv Goodfellow under a sense of duty to bis company ami then confidentially to a few people most concerned. But foi ihc present action they would not have reached the public. Sir John Findlay condemned Air Seymour’s attack on Goodfellow’s character, the more so because they came from counsel whose own client, has a character so shady that he dared not venture into the box to give evidence. Fox was trying to make capital out of the character which ho had not the pluck to defend. Plainly the case was a eommorcinl 0110.

Mr Seymour * loci n rod tlwifc Goodfellow’s malice, using the term in its legal sense, was shown by tho fact that, on his own admission, he had selected a certain person to receive allegations against Fox. His purpose was to promote his own opposition to the ward system, which menaced the dictatorship that he (Gnodfcllowf exercised over dairying in his district. Ho was out to “smash” Fox, who was merely suggesting a. letter method of organisation.

Tn summing up, His Honour invited the jury to find for the defendant on one cause of action, relating to an alleged statement to Parker that Fox was in the employ of proprietary concerns. He remarked that the evidence in support, of it was insufficient, and there was doubt- whether, if made, the statement was defamatory If the jury bad to consider damages, they would probably conclude that the £SOOO claim ed was excessive. They must- consider plaintiff’s station ill life in deciding what sum. if any. should be awarded. THF, TUB PICT. In the Goodfellow ease, just before midnight, the jury returned a verdict for £IOOO damages. Judgment was reserved, pending argument on non-suit points.