“Privileged”

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 208, 22 November 1927, Page 15

“Privileged”

STATEMENTS TO ROAD BOARD CONTENTION IN LIBEL ACTION 'J'HE action for alleged slander and defamation of character brought by Samuel Trevor Dibble, licensed surveyor, against Wesley Richards, quarry foreman, was continued before Mr. Justice Reed and a special jury of 12 this morning. The plaintiff claims £250 damages on each of two counts, for alleged libel contained in a letter written by the defendant and sent to the Mt. Wellington Road Board; and the other for alleged defamatory statements made at * meeting at Panmure on August j Mr. J. F. W. Dickson appears for the J plaintiff and Mr. E. J. Prendergast and * Mr. J. J. Sullivan for the defendant. 1 The letter made various allegations of * incompetence on the part of the plain- * tiff and his alleged misappropriation of \ the board’s goods. It also attacked his •, moral character. j Air. Dickspn detailed the events lead- « ing up to the trouble. j The defence, he said, contained < a series of allegations of mis- i appropriation of the board’s property 3 by the plaintiff, and that the speech 1 at Panmure was privileged. If malice I was proved, he pointed out, that priv- 1 ilege would be destroyed. The plaintiff, in evidence, detailed the events leading up to his engage- } mejit by the board. Ho submitted plans and specifications for the concreting work and later addressed the • ratepayers prior to the loan being called for. After the completion of the work the board expressed itself as quite satisfied with the work. He received 5 per cent, on the £72,000 loan as consulting engineer to the board. Everything he had done had been with the consent of the board. On the occasion of his visit to the quarry to see the defendant, he went under instructions from the board. The trouble arose over some pegs, and defendant was insolent, after witness had remonstrated with him. In consequence of hearing of the letter, he wrote to Richards, through his solicitors, demanding a public apology. He then went to the public meeting. It was because of the allegations against his moral character and of misappropriating trust funds that he issued the writ. PURCHASE OF BENZINE The cross-examination of the plaintiff was continued after the luncheon adjournment. Counsel made searching inquiry into the purchase of several tins of benzine by the plaintiff. Mr. Prendergast: Why did you present the chairman of the board with five cases of benzine?—“l made no such present.” Mr. Prendergast: Did you put one of the board’s employees on to do some haymaking for one of the members? — “I know nothing of that..” Witness admitted having done some work for the Panmure Domain Board, but. denied that it exceeded the estimate. It was for £6B. “It is not completed yet,” said Mr. Prendergast, “and has cost £125.” Witness pointed out that some extra work was ordered by board and this had entailed the extra cost. He denied that he paid the men bonuses in order to establish a record in concrete laying. If it had appeared in the newspapers, he did not give it. His remuneration was 5 per cent, on the £72,000, or £3,600.. RESPECT FOR TOWN CLERK The ex-town, clerk, Mr. Mays, he said, had consciously and unconsciously done him a lot of harm, although witness still had a lot of respect for him. Mr. Prendergast: Is- it because you had so much respect that you threatened him with an action for libel?— “But I still respect him.” Witness said his business had been damaged considerably by the alleged slander. He could not tell of any >6 he had lost through the statements. John S. Donovan gave corroborative evidence regarding the statements made at the meeting at Panmure. It was submitted by Mr. Prendergast that the occasion on which the letter was published to the members of the • Mount Wellington Road Board was a privileged one. The Panmure meeting was also privileged. He was granted leave to move for a non-suit on that ground. Counsel said the plaintiff had admitted that he had ordered 12 cases of benzine in the name of the board and delivered to his private tractors. The manner in which the chairman received gifts of benzine showed the business of the board was conducted in a lax manner. I Thomas Buckley, lorry driver, said, that on January 31 last he carted 12 cases to benzine to Tamaki West. Details of other cartages were also given. Alexander Page, public accountant, said he had gone over the books of the board in x'egard to some cases of benzine. Up to June, 1926, the book had been properly kept, but from then on it had been used as a memo. In 1926, it showed that Dibble debited himself for £9 15s for benzine. Thomas L*. May, retired schoolmaster, and clerk to the Mount Wellington Road Board for seven years, described t the policy of the board’s meetings. There were never any complaints that he had not recorded any of the business. After he had made an inventory of the tools, he reported to a < that a number of crowbars were miss- 1 ing. Dibble jumped up and demanded to know if he was being accused of theft. When the concreting was started the plaintiff told the board he would handle the accounts because he would be able to get more discount and save . £2OO or £3OO. Witness denied that he had anything to do with the road accounts. “I certainly think the ratepayers of Mount Wellington have suffered a great deal from Mr. Nibble’s interference,” said witness. He did not think the word “funds” was used in the speech at Panmure. It was, he thought, “property.” Cross-examined, witness said he was convenor of the second meeting held at Panmure on September 7. He was with the board until June, 1927. “For five years the board’s business was run absolutely fairly above board. The ratepayers’ money was spent equitably to the last shilling, and nothing was wrong. But so soon as Dibble came on there was trouble, and trickery was rife.” said the witness.