SLANDER CASE

Hokitika Guardian, 19 June 1933, Page 5

SLANDER CASE

) FURTHER' EVIDENCE! BODDIE V. SIEVWRIGHT. p (Per Press Association—Copyright). WELLINGTON, June 17. In the Bouuie-vSievw light slander case, G. A. Lawrence, Analytical Cons. L-oiiiiultmg chemist, sai-u that troni an anaFusis mat ne made of the cliarogene ns preparation and tn© other preparation, 3 , nr. (its, produced by the Christchurch \y conip.aiy, xL was ouvious that the two , e products were manufactuied from enn cireiy different formulae. In reply to a question, witness said that the preparations contained tire same ingrediente, but not m the same proporlioiiis. L _ Air O’Leary, addressing the Court, said that, so far as the case in gene;i ral was concerned, lie submitted that th;! proceedings had shown, to use t plaintiff’s own words to Neill and ? dievwright, that lie wa*s a man with j no lcputation to lcee. If it came t to ian assessment of damages, then it was submitted that the plaintiff’s words could be applied and that he would not be entitled to .any damages. Counsel further submitted that all the occasions of the alleged use of the . words were occasions of qualified privilege. He submitted that there was . 3 no evidence that the defendant had ’• . used the occasions otherwiso than lion- ' . estly. On another branch of the de- , fence, it was contended that it ’ had . been proved that Boddie was a rogue, , and that what the defence, eet out to justify had been amply justified £ Air Evans Scott, counsel for Boddie, in his address submitted that the statements alleged by plaintiff .were clearly slanderous and that there, was •. no justification for their use. He contended, among other things, that it had been shown, from a- legal point of view, that the formula taken over by the Christchurch Company and used by the Company was not Boddie’s formula. Dealing with ■ the question ® of privilege, which lie-, submitted did not' exist, counsel said that, if there ' were any doubt about, the matter, it was destroyed by the defendant's conduct. . It had -been shown, he argued, that the defendant, acted maliciously:. Counsel (referred to testimonials, as to Boddie’s character and to the _ evidence of witnesses who had sworn that, in their .dealings with plaintiff, c they had found Boddie an honest man. When the Court adjourned M r n Evans Scott had not concluded his ad- -V dress. The hearing will he resumed _ on Monday. ( | VXy 'll gAj