Engineer's Libel Action Succeeds

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 210, 24 November 1927, Page 17

Engineer's Libel Action Succeeds

AWARDED £3OO DAMAGES ROAD BOARD METHODS DEPLORED AN award of £3OO damages was ma de by the jury in the Supreme Court to-day to Samuel Trevor Dibble, engineer, who claimed £SOO from Wesley Richards, quarry foreman, for slander and defamation of character. The issues put to the jury and the tnswere as follows: (1). Did the defendant publish the letter? (a) to the board (b) to the representative cf “Truth”?—Yes. <?). Was such letter defamatory?— <V). Did defendant honestly believe the contents to be true, and was it made in the discharge of what he considered his public and private duty?— (4) Was defend? nt actuated by malice in making such statements (a) to the board? —No; (b) to the newspaper? —Yes. (5) Did defendant use all the words transcribed by the reporter at the meeting ?—Y es. (ti). Was defendant’s address at the public meeting defamatory?—Yes. (71 Did defendant believe (as question 3)?—The jury considers that the defendant honestly believed such statements to be true, but it does not believe that such statements were made in discharge of public or private duties. (3) Was defendant actuated by *ialice?—Yes. (0) What damages (a) for the letter? —None; (b> for the publication to '•Truth”?—£lso; (c> for the statements made in the speech?—£2so. **Wa conside. it our duty to express our disapproval of the general laxity In the condition of the affairs of the board, with reference to certain details of the operations, as disclosed by the evidence,” added the jury in a rider. His Honour reserved judgment until to-raorrow afternoon in order to give counsel an opportunity cf discussing the legal aspect. “PERFECTLY JUSTIFIED” “TT is perfectly clear, and I rule *• that a ratepayer such as the defendant was perfectly justified • in writing as he did to the Road Board,” said Mr. Justice Reed, in summing up. “And that is privileged unless it can be shown that it was written in malice,” continued his Honour. ‘‘The same applies to the address to the ratepayers. “A ratepayer is entitled, if he thinks public money is being wasted, to make statements if it is his honest belief that they are true.” The communi ration of the letter to “Truth” was not privileged and that Will have to be dealt with separately. The law on malice was gone into by his Honour, who pointed out that the only evidence of this was the fact that the letter was written after the Parties had had an argument in the scoria pit. He also stressed the fact that the plaintiff had a large land interest in the district and also had a number of other contracts in hand at the time of the concreting job. The question of damages was dealt 'vith at length, his Honour stating that d the jury thought the defendant made the statements in the letter "’hen not actuated by malice then they would award damages. In the second cause of action, that of privi‘ese, there was no privilege.