POLICE HEAD SUED

Hokitika Guardian, 27 May 1927, Page 4

POLICE HEAD SUED

( i.aim nn: libel.

at TELj-nn.M'ii- ,-i-.it t-r.Ess association.j CHRLSTITiURCTI. May 23. Alleging that a defamatory statement nan keen published about him, »\ illtam Valor bang, an e.x-tuiistabie, sued W. B. Alelnveney (Police Loin.uissioner) lor £163.) damages at the Supreme Court to-day.

tin* statement of claim set out that on June 23rd, 1926, the Commission t uilscly and maliciously caused to no published in the “Police Gazette,” and circulated amongst police utiiccm, tlie billowing alleged defamatory statement: —“Discharged upon exercise of Commissioner’s opinion under section 9 of Police force Act, Constable Kanvig. William \ ictor,” Whereas lie Mas discharged upon Iris own resignation, as shown bv the certificate of his discharge. As a result of the publication lie had been greatly prejudiced and injured in his credit and reputation, and had been brought into public scandal, hatred and eontempi. The Commissioner denied that lie published the words complained of or that ho published them maliciosly.

For the defence it was stated that on .May 26, 1926, Sanvig was charged was (barged before the superinteudant at Christchurch under regulation 353 with disobedience to the lawful order of a superior. On this charge he was convicted and lined Cl. On the following day he tendered his resignation from the force, lie omitted and refused to comply with section 15 ol the Police Force Act, which provided that no member of the force might resign his office unless expressly authorised in writing to do so by the Commissioner, or unless he had given the Commissioner one months notice in writing-if his intention to lesign. Later the Commissioner dismissed Sanvig, hut subsequently Sanvig asked the Minister of Justice to give him a discharge, in a form that wou-d cu able him to procure employment. The Minister without revoking the dismissal, directed the Commissioner to give Saving a discharge in some form that would enable him to procure employment. fii a further defence the Commissioner claimed that publication was privileged. “The police gazette was claimed a confidential publication. Mr Sargent for Savnig, said that the case was of particular interest to junior members of the Police Force. .Saving was an excellent officer until there was a pocnlnr affair at the central station in May last year. Instructions were given by the Senior Sergeant that the constable on niglit dutt should wash up the dishes after the evening meal. Savnig felt that it was not a lawful command and did not comply. He was lined LI lor disobedience. He with others, gave notice oi appeal and put in his resignation, 'file superinteudant said that it would not be accepted and be was told practically to get out straight away.

VERDICT FOR DEFENDANT. CHRISTCHURCH, -May 26. After hearing evidence Judge Adams said in view of what Sanvig had admitted there was no case to go to the jury. It was bis Honour’s duty to arrest the case at that stage. Judgment would be given for Defendant with costs as between Solicitor and client.