LIBEL ACTION

Hokitika Guardian, 18 November 1931, Page 6

LIBEL ACTION

HEAVY DAMAGES CLAIMED

AUCKLAND, Nov. 10

An action for damages totaling £3400, based on allegations of libel and slander, which was commenced in the Supreme Court on Friday was continued before Mr Justice Herdman to-day- Plaintiff was Fercival George Allsop, of Hamilton, building contractor and architect, who pioceeded against William Goodfelow, of Auckland, managing director of the New Zealand Co-operative Dliiry Company. Several, letters from the plaintiff to representatives of the company threatening direct action against the company unless his demands neie acceecled to were read to h.m by counsel for defendant. At one stage ho received £IOO in full settlement of all his claim aganist the company, and wa s threafter appointed as building inspector. Counsel read a letter addressed by plainiff to defendant and said to have been shown to him by many people. The document referred to defendant s “dishonourable, corrupt and cruel actions.” his “bungling nuMndm nstration, ignoring all codes of honour and principle,” and his “giting false evidence in God’s House of Justice.” No reply was made aid plaintiff then went to the police to lav charges of perjury against defendant and two other officers of the company. He further threatened 'to lay the matter before Mr Justice Herdman. He returned twice to t the police about this.

His Honour on several occasions asked plaintiff what hi s grievance was against Goodfellow, and expressed difficulty in discovering on what the libel charge was based. “If plaintiff was aware of the existence of this grievance away back in 1924, apart rom the publication, and lie forgave and accepted this job, and got £IOO, that is a eirumstance the jury is entitled to consider,” said his Honour later.

The hearing was continued to-night when counsel for, the defence submitted a number of nonsuit points. With regard to the report published n the “Dairy Farmer” of the inquiry held into plaintiff’s complaint, ounsel submited that the words vere not capable of defamatory meanbig. Further, publication, if any, ,vas on a privileged occasion, and, anally, there was no evident e cf malice. With regard to defendant’s otter, there was no proof of any oubliction nor any evidence of malice. His Honour witheM decision on the report in the “Dairy .Farmer,” under which £3OOO is claimed. The hearing will be continued t morrow.