SLANDER ACTION FAILS

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 707, 5 July 1929, Page 16

SLANDER ACTION FAILS

MAGISTRATE DISBELIEVES PLAINTIFF NEIGHBOURS IN COURT (From Our Own Correspondent) PUKEKOHE, Thursday. Alleging that the defendant had falsely and maliciously stated and published that he was filing a petition in bankruptcy, Ernest Piggott, farmer and sawmiller, of Buckland, sought redress in the Pukekohe Court today. Plaintiff claimed from the defendant, Mrs. Elizabeth Cathcart, and her husband, Robert Cathcart, farmer, of Buckland, £ 300 as damages for alleged slander. Mr. A. Fotheringham represented the plaintiff and Mr. E. G. Foster the defendant. “Mrs. Cathcart told me that Piggott was filing, that the boys were going out to work, and that Piggott and his wife were going to a kauri bush to live,” stated George Seymour, a butcher’s deliveryman, relating a conversation that took place on or about February 22. Upon returning to the shop he informed his principals and inquired from the manager of a store at Buckland whether he had heard any such rumour, receiving a reply in the negative. Asked by Mr. F. H. Levien, S.M., as to how Mrs. Cathcart had ascertained that Piggott owed his firm money, witness replied he had informed her on a previous occasion. “Did you not say to Mrs. Cathcart, ‘he oWes us about £6O, and I don’t suppose we’ll get sixpence’?” asked Mr. Foster. “I did not say anything about sixpence,” replied Seymour. Witness denied having heard at Paerata that Piggott was going to file or mentioning it at Buckland subsequently. The plaintiff, Ernest Piggott, said that between the hour of 10 and 11 o’clock he was standing, on his lawn when he observed the butcher’s van stop near his gate, Mrs. Cathcart approaching the vehicle. Upon hearing his name mentioned he listened attentively. “I heard her say I was going bankrupt and filing on Wednesday,” the plaintiff proceeded. “The butcher, in a surprised tone, said, ‘Go on,’ and she said it was true.” Witness further credited her with saying, “He is sending the boys out to work, and Piggott and the missus are going to the bush.” Piggott went on to say he recollected then he owed a little. The Magistrate: You did not go out and wax angry?—l did not go out to fight; I am not of a pugnacious nature.

Asked by his -counsel what sum he owed, plaintiff said he paid the storekeeper a cheque for £ 8 and the butcher £2O of the £3O he owed. To the Bench, he said pressure had been brought to bear on him to pay the amounts as the result of what Mrs. Cathcart was alleged to have published. Difficulties were experienced with his bushmen; it was a week before they settled down after hearing the rumour. Pressed by counsel for the defence to explain why he had approached Seymour, plaintiff said he did so in order to hear if he had heard anything. The Bench: That is weak. The manager of the store had called at his house, related the plaintiff, and had left a note asking for his account to be settled. The butcher’s man had requested his wife for a settlement. There was no pressure to pay until after the rumour was in circulation. The Bench: They must have been very quick. 1 notice Close’s cheque

is dated the 20th, and was cleared the same day. The butcher’s was not cleared until the 22nd. Wilfred Close, manager of a store at Buckland, denied having placed any pressure on Piggott. The plaintiff’s son delivered a cheque on the morning of February 21, and the same day he heard from Seymour as to what defendant was alleged to have said. The plaintiff had not established a publication of the facts, stated the magistrate. Mr. Levien went on to say that he was not satisfied with the evidence he had heard. In fact, according to the last witness, Seymour had published the facts before he had seen Mrs. Cathcart. The only other man who had heard the conversation was the plaintiff himself, and, added the magistrate, he placed no reliance on him. He would not hesitate to say Piggott did not hear the special words mentioned. Plaintiff was non-suited and defendants were allowed £l7 0s 6d costa.