WIPING OUT A SLANDER

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 72, 16 June 1927, Page 11

WIPING OUT A SLANDER

CASE BEFORE JURY AN INTERESTING JUDGMENT Press Association. WELLINGTON, To-day. An interesting point on the question of costs was decided by Mr. Justice MacGregor in a judgment delivered in the Supreme Court to-day. The case was one in which Annie Janet Buddicom claimed £5Ol damages for slander from Joseph Barnao. The facts showed that Barnao charged Miss Buddicom, before a witness, with stealing £2. The jury was satisfied that defamatory words had been published and awarded £5 damages, the action being brought largely to vindicate the girl’s character. In his judgment his Honour said that he had come to the conclusion that the case was a proper one to bring in the Supreme Court. It was true that an action might have been brought for £2OO damages for slander in a magistrate's court. In the present case, however, plaintiff was falsely accused of a criminal offence before a witness. In the circumstances, his Honour said, he thought that a person publicly charged with crime was entitled, in an ordinary case, to vindicate his or her honour and reputation before a jury, as a person so defamed could not obtain a jury in the magistrate’s court. If he failed in an action so brought he had to pay costs on the Supreme Court scale. If, on the other hand, he succeeded, his Honour said, he thought that he should as a rule be entitled to Supreme Court costs, except In trivial actions where nominal or contemptuous damages were properly awarded, which, of course, was not in the present case.

Judgment was entered for plaintiff for £5 damages and for costs on the lowest scale.