ALLEGED LIBEL

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 1, Issue 73, 17 November 1931, Page 5

ALLEGED LIBEL

(Press Assn. —

judge's difficulty CLAIM AGAINST PROMINENT DAIRY COMPANY DIRECTOR CASE FOR THE DEFENCE

By Telegrapli — Copyright).

AUCKLAND, Monday. The action for damages totalling £3400 based on allegations of libel and slander, which was commenced in the Supreme Court on Friday, was continued before Mr. Justice Herdman to-day. ' The plaintiff was Percival George Allsop, of Hamilton, building contractor and architect, who.proceeded against Willia.m Goodfellow, of Auckland, managing director of the New3 Zealand Co-operative Dairy Company Limited.

Several letters from plaintiff to representatives of the company threatening direct action against the company unless his demands were acceded to were read by counsel for the defence. At one stage, said counsel, plaintiff received £100 in full settlement of all his claims against the company and was thereafter reappointed as building inspeetor. Counsel read a letter addressed by plaintiff to defendant and said to have been shown by him to many people. The document referred to the defendant's "dishonourable, corrupt, and cruel action," his "bungling administratiOn and ignoring of codes'of honour and principles" and "his giving false evidence in God's house of justice." Went to Police No reply was made and then plaintiff went to the police and laid charges of perjury against defendant and two more offieers of the company. He further threatened to lay the matter before Mr. Justice Herdman. He returned twice to the police station about this. His Honour on several occasions asked the plaintiff what his grievance was against Mr. Goodfellow and expressed difficulty in discovering on what the libel charge. was based. "If plaintiff was aware of the existence of his grievance away back in

1924, apart from the publication and he forgave that and accepted this job and£100, that is a circumstance which the jury is entitled to consider," said the Judge. Counsel for the defence submitted a number of non-suit points. Privilege Claimed With regard to the report published in the Dairyfarmer; and the inquiry held into plaintiff's complaint, counsel submitted that the words were not capable of a defamatory meaning. The further publication, if any ,was on a privileged occasion, and finally there was no evidence of malice. With regard to the defendant's letter, there was no prpof of any publication or any evidence of malice. His Honour withheld his decision on the report in the "Dairyfarmer" in connection with which £3000 is claimed, but withdrew from the jury the complaint made in defendant's letter. Of the six causes of' action, two others were abandoned l^y plaintiff. The hearing will be continued tomorrow.