ACTION FOR SLANDER.

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 3, Issue 221, 14 August 1914, Page 4

ACTION FOR SLANDER.

Wcc'. Vcrs.is Shiphcrcl. £SO Damages Awarded. Road Board Incident.

A slinder actio.i arising out of a | me. ting of the Fuk-kohe West Komi Board en March 12'.h last waa heard in thi Auckiard Supreme ; ( out on Morday, lefore Mr Justice \ Coopjr and a jjry, when James En.est West, farmer, of Puktkihe, the chairman of tin Mrard, claimed £5Ol damages from Chattel Shipherd, settler, of Pukekohe, for d Tarnation of character. Mr R. McVtaeh conducted the plaintiff's casp, ard Mr J. K. Heed, K.C, aid Mr W. Er.dean d. fended. The stery outlined by Mr .McVe?gh was that the Board's msenng en March 12th was bUj attended by Shipherd, wtn waj not a member of the Board. Atk.d what Ii is buiinc-ss wa<, fchipherd entered into a disstrtaticn upon tin prccecdir.es cf the Bea:d, which he likened to fu ent=rtafriment. Next he alluded to some royalties wh : ch he declared were dice to him in connection with atone taken by one of the Board's ccntracton i'rem f.is property. A I di cu'-si n ensued in Rhich defendant j appeared to t ke exception to the I cliairm ai's statem2t.t that the stone j should have be.n mets.red lefare it left the (j carry. In effect, the d, f nla t raid ihat that was not the tirst dm t at West had made an incoir ct slatemnt, ar.d Shipherd nt< rted v i Ii the words complained of i:i the aeti n. "YOU S.VOUE LIES."

" ,\ In, y ;u sAere lies in the court hojse down I here,' he said, r.oiding his lea, i i tl.e ci c lion ef the Pukekohe c<urt ous-. Defendant then -at diwn Ihe discusabn was subieqjenllj resumed without any fuith:-r Ellegati ns being m.de. Mr McYeagh p.cceedeJ to enlighten the Curt upo.i a rtcei t page of Pukekohe history in order to explain the alleged defamatory statement. In 1!)0T>, at which time West vv.is chsi man tf the Board, a proposal had been made that a road should be taken through Shiphsrd's property, and as Shipherd objected th: Government set up a csmmission, at which tne chairman of the Road Board gave evidence. Counsel submitted that theie wi:s an obvrus correction b~t<?een the commhaion proceedings and defendant's reference at the meeting. Shipherd was given an oppoituuity to apologise, but had not availed himself of it.

Plaintiff gave evi!e.re ljeiriiijt out Mr McYeagh'a statement. In cross-examination witness averred that lie did not know to which particular portion of his evidence the defendant'.- allegation referred, hut pressed hy Mr JUeed, admitted that in the course of the compensation proceedings in the Supreme Court ho acknowledged a discrepancy between a statement lie made there and one he used before the commission. NOT A FALSE .STATE ME XT.

Replying to Mr McYeagh, witness declared that neither state incut lie made was false. When he said, before the Commissioner, thai £SOO would be fair compensation in connection with the making of the road, he believed that that sum was available, and was what, the ratepayers were prepared to pay. Mr Mason, solicitor, of Pukekohe, and clerk to the Board, gave evidence ns to the words us,nl by Mr Shipherd at the mooting, and declared that he immediately associated the allegation with the proceedings before the commission.

Several witnesses, who gavo evidence on the lines of Mr McYeagh'a remarks, were called. Tie y agreed that, in effect, defend nit made the statement attributed to him. Mr Heel called no cvidoaee for the defence. In addressing the jury he said that Shipherd had nut meant to say that West had been guilty of perjury. All ho had wished to convey was that West's evidence in connection with the proposed road, given in two places, had been inconsistent. He asked tho jury to award merely nominal damages His Honor, in summing up, remarked that tin: words were capible of u defamatory meaning, but whether then - bore such a meaning in the present instance was IVr the jury to decide. The jury retui'iio.l a verdict for th" plaintiff, who was awarded £'•)(•