JURY ADDS A RIDER

NZ Truth, Issue 1150, 15 December 1927, Page 3

JURY ADDS A RIDER

What Evidence In Auckland Slander Case Showed

(From 'N.Z. Truth's" Special Auckland Representative.)

One very important feature of the Dibble—Richards slander action was the comment passed by Judge Reed in respect to certain phases of the administration of its affairs by the Mount Wellington Road Board, and the special jury's rider when it brought in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, Dibble.

THE jury expressed disapproval of the general laxity in the conduct of the affairs of the bo.ard with-reference to certain details as disclosed oy the evidence. ' » Serious allegations of misappropriation of the board's property, sale of the board's material and misuse of his position as consulting' engineer, carrying out the work of concrete road construction "for his own self-aggrandise-ment," were made by Wesley Richards against Samuel Trevor Dibble". The former is ex-foreman of the Mount "Wellington scoria pit and the latter, surveyor and consulting engineer to the board. The plaintiff claimed the sum of £SOO damages for the alleged defamatory statements which were contained in a letter written by defendant to the board and for alleged slanderous statements uttered at a meeting of ratepayers at Panmure. He also claimed in respect of Richards' action in showing the letter to a representative of "N.Z. Truth." In the witness-box, Wesley Richards' testimony consisted, in the main, of retailing what others had told him in the district concerning these alleged wrongful acts by Dibble. On one or two matters ho spoke from personal knowledge. Judge Reed informed the jury that what others were alleged to have told Richards, was hearsay and must not be regarded as evidence in proof of the truthfulness of the charges. Such hearsay was admissible only to indicate to the jury the state of mind the defendant was in when he wrote the letter and spoke at the meeting. "Did the defendant honestly believe the statements made to him to be true?" This was what the jury had to consider, stated Judge Reed. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff on two grounds and in favor of defendant on the remaining issue. They awarded £3OO damages for tho publication of the letter to the "N.Z. Truth" representative and for the statements made at the Panmure meeting. No damages were awarded for the publication of the letter to the board. The jury found defendant had honestly believed the charges to be true, but he had been guilty of malice in publishing them at the meeting and to "Truth." The proceedings were remarkable, mainly for the interesting sidelight thrown upon the lax methods of administration indulged in by the Mount Wellington Road Board, and for a climax • which held all the promise of a sensation. The evidence, which drew from the jury the rider quoted in this article, was an admission by plaintiff Dibble and members of the board. This was, that no accounts or books of accounts were kept at the board's office in regard to the concrete road construction work carried out by Dibble by day labor under agreement with the Mount Wellington Road Board. The sum involved was £72,000, loan money raised Cor the purpose of carrying out this work. Plaintiff, in liis evidence, stated that the board had kept no records of expenditure or books of account and that all such books and records had been kept in his office by an accountant in his employ. Further, that he had ordered all material in the name of the board for the Work upon which he was engaged and that all invoices were sent to his office. Cheques were made out in his office and presented to the board with the invoices to be signed for payment. He further stated that whilst engaged on this construction work for the Mount Wellington Road Board, he was also engaged in other contracts and sub-contracts for outside persons ana firms, . During his summing up, Judge Reed said;. "It is a most unfortunate state ]

of affairs that the acts of plaintiff and the board should have been such as the trial of this case has revealed lo be the position. "Continuing,-he. referred to plaintiff's statements, that he had three sections in the Silverton estate, and after the construction of the road he acquired a half-interest in a property valued at £IBOO, and a share of £SOO in two other land companies in the district. "Then again, he was interested in many works other than those of the board at this time, and was also a partner in a firm of carting contractors." Reviewing the information which defendant had had before him when he made his charges, Judge Reed said the evidence about the cases of benzine that were sent out to Tamaki and afterwards sent back to the board's dump without any records being taken, revealed an extraordinary, state of affairs.

On Friday afternoon, the day following the conclusion of the trial, there was a sensational turn given the proceedings when Lawyer J. J. Sullivan, who had appeared for Richards with Lawyer E. J. Prendergast, when making application for a new trial, said the grounds for such was alleged improper practice on the part of the plaintiffs counsel (Lawyer J, F. W. Dickson) in speaking to one or more jurymen during the trial. Lawyer Sullivan stated that he would put forth his reasons in affidavits. He also stat- _. , ed that his client Richards, had informed him that since the verdict had been given two jurymen told him that they understood that a majority verdict would not be given, and that they had more or less been under a misunderstanding in the matter.

For Plaintiff

"I don't propose arguing- the verdict at this stage," he said, "though the verdict was contradictory and the finding on interrogatories 7 and 3 were not consistent." Lawyer Dickson, in an explanation to the court, said that the jury were standing in front of the plan of the Panmure district and he had strolled over to the group. Some of the jury had asked where the Panmure church was. Lawyer Sullivan had then come up and remarked that the court was adjourned. He (Lawyer Dickson) had then said: "Come away at once." The court adjourned until Tuesday. When the matter again came up for hearing Lawyer Sullivan intimated to his honov that the motion for a nonsuit and that for a new trial had both been withdrawn. He agreed to judgment for the plaintiff for £3OO and costs, and costs for the defendant on the issue he had won. "The matter, is settled," he concluded. Lawyer Dickson gave an intimation that this was correct.