ONEWHERO SCHOOL FINANCE.

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 8, Issue 443, 21 January 1919, Page 2

ONEWHERO SCHOOL FINANCE.

CLAIM FOR LIBEL. MAGISTRATE'S DECISION ' PLAINTIFF LOSES CASE. A written judgment has beeb. given by Mr F. K. Hunt, B.M. in the action heard at the Magistrate's Court last Thursday, in which Mr R. J, Glasgow (Mr Haddow) sought to recover from Mr W. Keyes (Mr Ostler) the sum of £IOO in respect of a letter, alleged to contain libellous matter, written by defendant, and published in the issue of the "Pukekohe Times" of July 9th last. The grounds of action were the outcome of correspondence that had taken place between the parties concerning the state of the Onewhero School Committee's finances when Mr Glasgow vacated office as Chairman of the Oommittee in April, 1917, and was succeeded by Mr Keyes. The Magistrate's judgment is as follows: " In this case the plaintiff seeks to recover £IOO damages for libel. The case was heard at Pukekohe on the 16 th January instant, and from the evidence given I have learned the history of the dispute between the parties. The plaintiff was chairman of the Onewhero School Committee for the year 1916-7, and the defendant succeeded him for the following year, 1917-18. At the statutory meeting of householders held in April, 1918, the defendant, as chairman, in giving an account of what he and his Committee had done during the year, said, in effect, that he had commenced his year of office with a debit balance of £9 17s sd, left by the old Committee. This statement was indignantly denied by the plaintiff, who said that the debt was only about £2. He seemed to consider the statement was a reflection on his management during his chairmanship Now, had the parties and their adherents shown a little tact and conrtesy to one another at this stage the Court would not have been troubled with this case. The plaintiff in his evidence contends that his Committee's accounts should have; been credited with the proportioarjt subsidy due np to April, 1917, anf also that £3 odd paid by cheque before the meeting in April was not shown. The meeting ended with the plaintiff considering he had been wronged by. the defendant stating that he (the plaintiff) had left debts to be paid by the incoming Committee, and the defendant felt he was wronged by being flatly contradicted in a public meeting by the plaintiff —a much younger man. The parties seem to have met in the street some days after and abused one another, and then to have carried on a correspondence in local newspapers, the defendant alleging that there was a debit balance when he took over the chairmanship, and the plaintiff denying it One of these letters, that signed by the defendant, and appearing in the " Pukekohe and Waiuku Tijaes " of the 9ih July last, is the subject of this action. Counsel for plaintiff submits that the whole tenor of this letter holds his client up to contempt, hatred, and ridicule)land sets out five innnendoes which, he says, should be drawn from it—(a) That the plaintiff had been guilty of wilfully making false statements; (b) That he was an ignorant, superficial, and presumptuous person, incapable and unfit for the office of chairman or member of a School Committee; (c) That he was unmanly and a hypocrite, and had resorted to hypocritical and contemptible devices; (d) That he had been dishonest and incapable in his dealings with the funds of the Onewhero School Committee ; (e) That the plaintiff himself had admitted that he was guilty of wilful falsehood. Now, I have carefully read and considered the passages and words in the letter relied on by plaintiff's ounsel in supporting these innuendoes, and I do not. nor do I think any reasonable man would, consider they bear the meanings alleged by him. The first one seems to be the only one worthy of consideration, that is 'that the plaintiff had been guilty of wilfully making false statements.' Since I find, as a fact, that he did say there was only about £2 owing, whereas there was more, the defendant was justified in calling it a false statement. And this is tha only statement made to which the letter can refer. Tho defendant does not say it wa> ' wilfully' made. As to the letter as a whole, although it :ontains such expressions as ' expunge his fair nana.) of the stigma oast upon it,' ' amount of debt he left owing,' 'is hardly likely to convince anyone that his knowledge .is anything but superficial, and his scholastic attainments the most meagre,' ' putting off the evil hour,' 'guilt,' etc., etc., these might be defamatory if taken by themselves, but must be taken with the context, *nd I think read with the other letters which were published, and then it will be seen that they only refer and relate to this incident alone —that of leaving a small debit balance at the end of the School Committee's vear, which, even if true, is neither dishonourable nor d -honeot or proJ of inability. No reasonable man could say that the plaintiff's reputation has been damaged in any way. He has proved neither damage nor malice (which, of course, was not incumbent on him), and I do not think he is entitled to recover. At the hearing the defendant publicly stated that he imputed nothing dishonest to the plaintiff, and asked the defendant to withdraw the case; the defendant refused. I give judgment for the defendant, with costs." In view of the possibility of an appeal, His Worship has fixed £2O as costs of appeal.