ACTION FOR LIBEL.

North Otago Times, Volume CVII, Issue 17748, 9 March 1927, Page 7

ACTION FOR LIBEL.

Press Association.)

TRAM GUARD THE PLAINTIFF. VERDICT FOR DEFENDANT.

(Par

AUCKLAND, Last Night. A claim for £100 damages for alleged libel was made in the Magistrate's Court this morning hy William John Dunn, tramway conductor- (Mr Sullivan) against A. J. K. Campbell of Auckland, secretary of the Matakara Dairy Company (Cr Cocker). Mr Hunt was on the Bench. Plaintiff's statement of claim alleged that certain words in a statemept made in writing hy defendant to the head of the Auckland tramways, meant and were understood to mean that plaintitf _ while on duty as a tram conductor had acted dishonestly and fraudulently by issuing a false ticket to defendant and in fraudulently retaining moneys, the property of plaintiff's employers and unlawfully converting them to his own use. By reason of publication of the statement plaintiff had been much injured in his credit and had been exposed to contempt and odium. Defendant's case was that the statement was made in the performance of his duty and in protection of the public, the statement__ being made to the person properly charged with the duty of investigating the matter. Further it was claimed that the statement was privileged on the ground, that xt was made in response to a request hy an employer as to the conduct of one. of his servants. Defendant in evidence said the statement referred to in plaintiff's statement of claim was made to a tramway officer on the day'following the incident. Regarding the clapse to which plaintiff ptinclpally objected, defendant said it 'was put to him in the form of a question by a tramway officer and he had replied in the affirmative. In giving judgment the Magistrate said there was no difficulty in the facts and there appeared to him to be no difficulty in the case in other respects. It was admitted by both sides that the occasion was one of qualified privilege. He helieved the defendant got a wrong ticket by mistake and it would have been much better if he had called the conductor's attention to the matter as soon as he noticed it. As it was a case of privilege the effect was to render it incurabent on the plaintiff to prove malice and plaintiff had not done so. Apparently defendant, rightly or wrongly, had given what he believed to be the true account of what had happened. "If I were to hold defendant responsible nobody would be 'willing to make any statement in the public interest," added the Magistrate in giving judgment for defendan# with costs. Security for appeal was fixed at £15 15s.