A VAIN APPEAL FOR ASSISTANCE

Taihape Daily Times, Volume XI, Issue 3523, 9 July 1920, Page 5

A VAIN APPEAL FOR ASSISTANCE

(To the Editcr.)

Sir,——All people who read newspapers know that for some time now Government has forcefully drawn the attention of local authorities to the necessity of resuscitating organisations which so bravely. fought the epidemic of sixteen months ago. Having this in view,‘ I managed, though with considerable difficulty, to get a message to His Worship the Mayor on Tuesday last (24th) to the effect that all the family, excepting one very small child were prostrated with influenza, that we‘lnost urgently required assistance, and suggested that hetsend the District Nurse or some other person. Towards evening the answer came: “The Mayor says there is no district nurse and he has no’ one he can send!” Kindhearted‘ neighbours who have neither leisure nor worldly possessions to compare with W'orship then tobk a hand, and by 8 pm. had succeeded in procuring medical assistance, and early next morning assistance was available. For unadulterated, heartless ineptitude, surely His Worship is about the limit. As a prominent public man-who work\ed in the last epidemic (at least, being a seeker after civic honom-s,V I suppose he did) he must know that isolated instances of extreme hardship are liable to occur, yet when such a case is reported he treats it as infra dig even to make inquiries: while apparently seeking all, the‘ kudos attaching to public position he] ignores those little things Whichi make, not for publicity, but respect.’ I would advise. the good folk of Taihape not to. wait for a. lead from His I Worship in similar matters because; the necessary character for a Napol-I eon will never be found in one who! is too big to attend to small matters. ‘ ~—l am, etc; ~ ' . - L.<- A. SI-lARLAND. I

The Defendants raise three defences, namely, first, that the statements are no-t actionabl.e; secondly, justification in that the statements are true in facts; and thirdly, t‘:.:lt the letter is -fair comment of the Plaintiff's‘ actions. The Defendants rely in support on their firs: contention upon the case of ‘Parmiter v. Coupland (Revised reports Vol. 55 p. 529) and ‘Alexander v. Jenkins (1892 1, QB. 797)4” They say that the letter contains statements only to the Plaintiff’s fitness for the ofiice ozfi Mayor and that being an honorary office any misconduct or unfitness imputed to him must be such as would enable him to be removed from hisioflice beiore such statements are actionable without proof of special damage. The able judgmentof Lord Herschell in the case of Alexander v. Jenkin is a statement of the law of slander. " I cannot accept the doctrine he there lays down as applicable to libel. In that case words had been spoken imputing,dl'unkenness and unfitness for oflice against a town councillor and the learned Lord held that such, were not actionable per se but only upon proof of special damage. The law, how'ever,drawsadistinction between libel ‘and slander founded of course upon the more permanent. and visible nature of libel. In Odgers on the Law of Libel and Slander (sth ed. at page 25) it is stated: “It is libelloug to impute to anyone holding an oflice that he has been guilty of improper conduct in that office or has been actuated by Wicked, corrupt or selfish motives 01‘ is incompetent for the post he holds.”; And again on the same page “In cases of slander a distinction is drawn between offices of profit and oiiices of honour merely, such as that of justice of the peace; and it has been Held that merely to impute incompetency corwvant of ability (as' distinct from want of integrity or impartiality) to aiman whose oflice is not of profit is not actionable. There is no authority however for supposing that an -action Of libel would not lie if such words ‘were printed and published.” That ‘opinion’ of the learned author is quitei in accordance with the statement of the law in Mr Justice Salmond’s work ion the Law -of To-rtsat page 450 of the fourth edition. When dealing with the distinctions between libel and 'sl3*nd°" he s«‘lYS= "Libel is in all cases ‘actionable per se; but. slander :';-. save

ifi special cases actionable only 011 proof of actual damages.”

E It seems to me further that the l statements contained in -this letter are [not only defamatory of the plaintiff 4 by aileging gross neglect of the duties l of his oftlce as ;\l.ayor and untitncss to i hold that oflice, but that they are also i defamatory of him in his private capai city as a citizen by causing him to be iregarded with feelings or «_:ontcmpt, dislike, and disesteem. The contrast. which the wl'it.er'drav's lwctween :iie actions of “l:illdh:ra,rtcd ]i;:l.g:lll)(Iill'S, (who have neither leisure or worldly possessions to compare with His Woriship” and the alleged ‘heartless conduct of the plaintiff I can only conistrue to refer to him in his private [capacity as a citizen of some wealth. lWhcn one remembers the severity of the epidemic which visited New Zealand _in 1918 and the many instances of the loss of lives resulting ‘through I whole fzrmilies being laid up ‘and with- ‘ out any assistance the gravity of the charge made against the plaintiff is readily perceived. If his conduct had been such as the writer alleged it to the he would" have merited the con} {tempt of right-l'hinking men. I The def.en:lants’ plea of justification must fail utterly. ’l‘he only wit.nesses the defendants called to prove ‘apparently that Ur Sllarlan(l’s message was delivered t'o"'i’he plaintiff i swore quite to the contrary. The lad Knox who was supposed: to have telephoned to the plaintiff at his private house said that he spoke to a child on the telephone who said that Mr Joblin was away from home and the [lad then said to tell Mr Joblin that lSharlands were ill and wanted help. Mrs Knox, who was supposed to have communitcd with“‘the plaintiff at the Town Hall said that she rang up the .Town Clerk ’s ofiice and asked him to I deliver :1 message to the Plrnket lNurse (whose ofiice is in the same ’building) that Sharland and all his family were ill and wanted assistance. She had tried to’ get the Nurse direct on the telephone biit had been unable .to get an answer to her call. She was corroborated by Mr Duncanlfa clerk in ithe Borough npflice, who took the meslsage and found the Nurse ’s office closled and seems to have forgotten to igivo the messageo later. During all }this time .the ‘plaintiff was away oni ‘ his farm near Hunterville and in total ' ignorance of Mr Sharland’s illness and even of his existece. It is, therefore, quite impossible to find any reasoni why Mr Sharland should have writ-‘ ten “I managed, though with considerable diflienlty, to get. a message to His Worship the Mayor to the eifect that all the family excepting one ~.-cry i small child were prostrated _with influenza, that we most urgently 113- I quircd assistance and suggested that‘ he send the district nurse or some] other person. Towards evening the‘ answer came: Tlie Mayor says _there is no district nurse and he has no one he can send.” The lad who was supposed to have brought that answer says that he never did so and indeed, never returned to Sharland’s house at all. I was very dissatisfied with thel witness Sh'arland“'s" evidence‘. Iqcon-. sidercd his to be a well-rehearsed spite; ful story which was contradicted by| honest witnesses. The publication be-I ing untrue. in fact the defence of “fair comment” cannot avail the defend-I ants. It would be intolerable if per'—_ sons or newspapers were permitted to publish untrue allegations of fact and then to claim that ‘because the person defamed held a publl'<§"§?Fst of honour :their action amounted to no more than | fair comment. ‘The distinction is well stated by the Privy Council in thei case of Davis v. Stepstone (1886 lli A.C., p. 190): “It is one thing to coinment upon or criticise‘ even with scver- ' ity the acknowledged or proved acts of a public man and quite another to as; sert that he has been guilty of 1:111‘-l ticular acts of misconduct.” ‘Sir Jus— ' tice Salmond at page -181 of his work‘ on Torts says regarcling fair comment: "Being therefore ainere matter of opinion and so incapable of definite proof he who expresses it is not called upon by the law, to justify it was being‘ true, but is privileged to express it. even though others disagree with it provided that it is fair and honest.” That which is founded on untruth and known to be so founded can never be, fair and honest. I

i The defendants must therefore fail tin all their defences and the plaintiff’ |recover damages. The publication was !one printed and circulated in a newspaper and as to the seriousness of such Ta libel I cannot do better than quote ‘the words of Best C. J. in ‘De Cresjpigny V. Wellesly (5 Bing. pp. 402406): “The effect of this is very dif» ferent from that of the repetitien of ‘oral slander. In the latter case what :has been said is only to a few persons and if the statement be untrue the imputation cast upon any one may be got rid Of; the report is not he:n"d of beyond the circle in which all the parties are known and the veracity of the accuser and the previous "character of the accused will be pro'pe\rly estimated. But. if the report. ié to be spread over the world- by mea.n§ of the press, the malignant falsehoods of the vilest of mankind, which would not receive the least cw-eclit wliel'e the an-»

thor is known, would make an impression whichvit would require much time and trouble to el‘-ase, an«l’\'vl;icil it. might be difficult, not impossible, ever completely to 1-exnm-'»:. Before he gave it general notoriety by circulat~ ing it in prixli‘, he &'.!1uu1«1 have been prepared to prove its truth to the letter; for he had no more right to take away the <3llal'zlc"tel' of the pl2liuti.fl’ without being able to prove the truth of the c]la«rge he had mfladc-. against. him, than to take his pl'opel'ty \'vifll«)ut being able to justify the act by \\=hic‘h he possessed 11in1.~'.o1f of it. Indeed if we I'efloal‘ on the degree of suffering occasioned by 10.9.5" of characjter and compare it with that occusionetl by loss of pl'opel'i‘y, t‘he,arnounl' of the former injniry far exceeds that of the latter.” A

I do not think this to be a case of nominal but for substantial dzuhages. The letter itself bears evidonve of malice, so does the subsequmn letter published on the Bth March as a continuution of the correspondence. Some of the insinuations there Inzule were admitted fo be founded on the gossip of 2! busybody. The <lefL>.nd:nlt.< were -given an opportunity to apologise, but took no notice of it. am? in the conduct of tzhoir defence on the plea. of justification 11d.V'e endeavoufcd to besrnirch the e'h:u~acter of the plaintiFf.'

I give judgment for the full amount claimed. £2OO and costs; ‘solicitors £ll, fees of Court £3 4/, witnesses, Dr. McDiarmid. £1 1/, McDonald 15/.