NO LIBEL

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 1, Issue 74, 18 November 1931, Page 5

NO LIBEL

(Press Assn.-

jury's finding ARCHJTECT'S CLAIM AGAINST ^ MR. GOODFELLOW FAILS . . . :: "BEE IN HIS BONNET"

-By Telegraph— Copyright).

AUCKLAND, Tuesday. The alleged Iihel and slander actioft instituted by Percy George All- . sop, of Ham'lton, against |William,! Goodfellow, of Auckla.n4,. Managing. , . Director of the N ew -IZisSlaiid Co-oper-ative Dairy Company, Ltd., ended in a verdict for defendant. The six original causes of action, in which £3400 damage£ was claimed, were reduced to-day to one. When the hearing was resumed His Honotir stated _ that it seemed impossible that the eount wh ' ch alleged that p'laintiff" had been injured in his professional capacity could stand. The evidence showed that he had been in the business of building contractor and arehitect for1 17 years. At ihe time of the alleged slander he was acting as an organiser. No special damage had been proved. This left only the major first count, oh which ♦ £3000 was claimed, for puhl'cation • of the Fowlds-Fow report in the ^ "Dairyfarmer" in July, 1925, which it was alleged, made it appear that Allsop had made overcharges in Te- • spect of the Te Awamutil dried milk factory. . . , . . Mr. Goodfellow's counsel stated it ; was not intended to call evidence for ihe defence. Addressing the jury he stated that Goodfellow gave Allsop^ a honus of £100 for good work ahd when the aepartment was closed Goodfellow gave Allsop £250 and six months' salary. Later Goodfellow gave * Allsop another £100 and then fdund ; his a position at £425 a year. Alisop > h'mself recorded at the time that such conditions would close all nii'sunderstandings, but he went on to • •'ssue a writ claiming £1700 for ser/iees prior to that agreemeht. "Could Not Be Libel" No evidence had been called to show -

that the report referred to Allsop, • nor did one witness state that he ;hought it defamed Allsop. The statement of fact in the report was correet, . and the mere publication of this language could not he libel. The fatal point, if all else failed, was that there was no evidence what- ' ever that Goodfellow was responsible for the publication. "This is a simple case of a charge J of defamation," said His Honour. The _ libel, if^there was one, took place s'x years ago and it was open to plaintiff, if he thought he had a grievance, ; to take action at any time to vindicate his position until July of this year. The alleged libel consisted of , the publication in the "Dairyfarmer" . on July 20, 1925, of a report of a commission of inquiry and the words. specially relied on were: "An investigation satxsfied the commission that " over-charges had undoubtedly been made to the Te Awamutu factory building account," "Where was the plaintiff referred to there, and how could there he" any refleetion on him in these words?" ( asked His Honour. That was for the jury to discover. The jury might think plaintiff had a bee in his bonnet and had had it in his bonnet for the last six years and that instea.d of the dairy company persecuting him, he had been persecuting the company. The jury had to deeide whether the publication was of such a character . as to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of his fellow men. The jury after an hour's retirement returned with a findmg that the words . and figures complained of in the "Dairyfarmer" did not refer to plaintiff and were not defamatory of him. This finding rendered a decision on

the other issues unnecessary and • judgment was entered for defendant. with costs.