ACTION FOR SLANDER.

Taranaki Daily News, 6 February 1920, Page 6

ACTION FOR SLANDER.

iWHENUAKURA FARMERS FALL OUT. SUPREME COURT PROCEEDINGS. NOMINAL DAMAGES AWARDED. An action for slander was brought in the Supreme Court yesterday, before his Honor Mr. Justice Sim, by Thomas C. C. Simson, and others, farmers, Whenuakura, near Patea, aauinst John 8. Pearce, farmer, Whenuakura, for £505 damages, for defamation of character. Mr. P. O'Dea (Hawera) represented plaintiffs, and Mr. A. H. Johnstone appeared for defendant.

The following jury were empannelled: —Messrs C. L. C. Holt, C. K- Shepherd, W. Harvey. W. C. Nixon, W- H. Beadle, E. S. Allen, H. H. Bennett, J. West, D. M. Smith, W. B. Cruickshanks, W. 11. Huggett, and H. Inch. Mr. Nixon was chosen foreman. Mr. O'Dea, in opening the case, said the parties were farmers in the neighborhood of Patea. Bad e feeling had arisen between them owing to trouble over stock trespassing. Defendant had once impounded some stock belonging to plaintiffs. The slander consisted of the uttering to an employee the words: "Have nothing to do with those Siinsons in the house over there; they are a had lot. And as for that man, he's a thief. In fact, they are all the same. They have been had up once for stealing" These words were spoken to a man named Perkinson and his wife, who came to tvork for Pearce. He also told Perkinson that he had been losing lambs and knew who had: taken them, and told him to keep an eye on Simson. These words were repeated on several occasions to Perkinson, and also to another employee named Sherwood, and were frequently used when Pearce spoke of the Simsons. Although the defence of privilege in speaking to a servant was rais-

ed. Mr. O'Dea said the frequency with which the words had been repeated destroyed that ground of defence, and, in any .case, Mrs. Perkinson was not an employee of defendant. ADVICE TO AVOID NEIGHBORS. George Henry Perkinson, laborer, employed .i i th<; Patea Freezing Works, deposed that he was previously employed by the defendant. Hia wife was not

employed by Pearce. He arrived at defendant's place on December 3rd, WIS. The next morning he saw defendant, who, in a conversation, told him to have nothing to do with the Simsons. They were a " bad" lot. and, as for Tom, he's a thief." His wife was with him at the time, an'': heard what was said. Defendant was continually speaking about the Simsons. and on December Bfch he again repeated to witness practically the same things he had said o:i the first occasion. He also complained nf his gates being left open, and said, pointing to Simsons' place. "That's the lot that are doing it." He also said that "it's not so long ago since they were had up for thieving." About the middle of January witness had occasion to ask for wages, having received nn payment, ur> to that time. Defendant aeain urged witness not to have anything to do with the Simsons. as they were "a had lot." Later on, while talkin"- abort the-farm work, Pearce said to him: "Take my tip, and watch the Simsons: ther're thieves." He made out to witness that the Simsons were no good, until he (witness) found out differently. Witness left Pearce's employment in June. For the-previous two months he had not spoken to witness very much: in fact, he had tried to evade him because he (witness) complained at the price Pearce was charging him for his meat. On one occasion witness drove to Patea in a gig lent by the Simsons, and from that time Pearce never spoke to him about the Simsons. The fences of the farms were fairly good, and he did not think there was much trespass of stock between the two properties.

FALL OUT WITH EMPLOYER. To Mr. Johnstone: He had had about 2'/ 2 years' fanning experience before coining to Mr. Pearce's to work. At the first conversation between witness and defendant, the latter referred to the fact that he had been losing lambs from a paddock known as No. 5, which adjoined Sanson's place. In course of time witness became friendly with the Simsons. Witness was not satisfied with the class of work Pearce put him on to, and towards the end of his employment they quarrelled several times. He admitted telling a neighbor one morning that he had given Pearce a pretty good shaking up. He had never threatened to thrash Pearce. He admitted being dismissed by Pearce. He had some difficulty in getting out of the cottage on Pearce's farm, as he could: not get another house. The trouble between the witness and Pearce originated over witness being charged !)d a pound for his meat. He told the Simsons what Pearce had been saying about them. Witness admitted he did not now bear witness much good will, but denied ffliat he had ever said that Pearce had said enough about the Simsons to "put him up as high as a kite." WATCHING THROUGH FIELD GLASSES.

In re-examination by Mr. O'Dea, witness said Pearce used to watch his men at their work through field glasses. In the whare in which witness lived there was on the wall a photo of Pearce looking through field glasses, and underneath it was written: "Beware of Pearce with the glasses, and Jimmy the crawler." "Jimmy" was another employee of Pearce. Lillian Agnes Perkinson, wife of the previous witness, gave corroborative evidence. Under cross-examination by Mr. Johnstone, witness said she had no love for Mr- Pearce. as he had treated her and the four little children more like pigs than human beings. Her hushand had been "done in" bv Pearce. because they expected to get their meat for nothing.- She complained at being charged !M a pound for meat, and said she could tint pay that sum out of £2 10s a week. They also had to go without vegetables, she having to give the children medicine while Pearce was throwing vegetables to the stock, PICTURES ON THE WALL. Herbert Edgar Sherwood, who had been an employee of Pearce, deposed to his telling him to have no'f'- >g to do with the Simsons, as tliev yre a bad lot. Witness worked i r fear'ce for about IS month". V'"i s'/io came to work for defenilnp* •-'■';* stayed more than a couple " f '>-•--->'• . Pearce used to watch the men *'•;-«« .fh. Held glasses. and there were pict-nres of him and "Jimmy" in the whare. with-warnings written under them about spying on MtkM U.IW

Cross-examined by .Mr. Johnstone, witness said he had to keep on pretty good terms with. Pearce while livin'» and working with him. He got on good terms with the Perkinsons when they came there. He could not get a good feed at Pearce's, and used to go down to Parkinson's, who saved pudding for him. He admitted Pearce had said something about lambs being lost, but witness had never been sent out specially to watch.

BREACH OF FRIENDLINESS. Henry David Cameron Simson, farmer, Whenuakura, deposed that with his two brothers he took up a mixed farm adjoining Pearce's. The dividing fences were in bad order, and there was a lot of trouble with trespassing stock all round, especially with Pearce, who several times impounded some of witness' stock- He never impounded any of Pearce's stock. After the impounding episode they were not on friendly terms. He fir?t heard the statements alleged to have been made about him and his brother by Pearce in March, 1911). Witness was away at the war about a year from the beginning of 1917. To Mr. Johnstone: There was some trouble between witness and neighbors

over straying stock. There was no illfeeling over any of these matters. CASE FOR DEFENDANT. Mr. Johnstone, in opening for the defence, referred to the fact that the slander should be proved in respect of each of the plaintiffs, and it was not enough to prove the allegation jointly. He then pointed out that to be succesful in a slander action it was necessary to prove the actual words used, that ttiey had been published, and that they had been used mischievously. Counsel conceded that words had been published, but questioned whether the actual words had been deposed to. It had been difficult for counsel for plaintiff to secure from witnesses any admission as to what Pearce was alleged to have said constituting an imputation of crime, which was necessary to make a slander charge actionable. It would also be submitted that the words used were privileged in the. sense that they were uttered by a man to his employee in the course of directing him as to his work. Such privilege was the„convenience of society. - MISSING LAMBS. ' Defendant, in evidence, said he had had his farm at Whenuakura for ten years. The fences betweeen him and Siin-

son's farm were gorse and boxthorn. He had no trouble over straying stock with anyone but the Simsons. In the 1918 lambing season he commenced to miss lambs. The sheep were grazing down near Simson's farm. He saw the ewes walking up and down the fence bleating, and the lambs were not with them. A little before that time some rams belonging to the Simsons came in twice and he warned them that if they came again they would be iinooundcd, which was done the next time they came. Witness lost the sale of fiOO ewes on account of the rams having been with them. Simson was very angry at the rams being impounded, and threatened to get even with Pearce over it. After that he told Sherwood to keep an eye on the lambs. The roan" gates on witness' farm were frequently being left open. Perkinson came to work for him in December. 101 S. The terms of employment were £2 10s per week, free house and firewood, paying for a horse, and a cow to milk for his own use. Tn talking about the work, he told Perkinson there had been some lambs missed, and warned him to have nothing to do with the Simsons. as their reputation was not too good. After some time Perkinson became insult'ng and threatened witness with a supplejack, and also said he would "put him un as high as Baldwin." (Counsel exDlained to the Court that he believed "Baldwin" was a celebrated "parachute jrentleman.") Continuing, witness said he never, excepting on the first occasion, said anything to the Perkinsons about avoiding the Simsons.

WHAT THE DEPENDANT MEANT, Cross-examined by Mr. O'Dea, witness denied having trouble with anybody over straying stock. He had had some trouble with hfe dogs worrying other people's sheep, but he had paid for any damage done. In the, past two years he had only had three men working for him. He denied spying on his men with field glasses. He had used them on one boy. and. as lie found him not working, he sacked him. He did not know anything about the picture of himself and "Jimmy" in the whare. "Jimmy" had been with witness ten years. Witness admitted warning Perkinson about tlie Simsons, saying that they were a bad lot. and that "Tom was a thief.'' ,He meant that the Simsons had a cow'at their place which he knew did not belong to them, and that he had missed some lambs. A great many questions were asked as to defendant's relations with and treatment of his' employees. In re-examination by Mr. Johnstone witness said a cow which had belonged to a neighbor was taken from Simsmi's place, and the hide was subsequently found at the meal works, and in legal proceedings which had followed the Simsons had had to pay for the beast. THE SUMMING TJP.' No more evidence was called and counsel addressed the jury. In his Honor's summing up he pointed out to the jury that they must be satisfied, before they could give a verdict for plaintiffs, that the words used imputed the crime of theft to the plaintiffs and were used not merely as a term of abuse. He also said that if a verdict was given for plaintiffs damages would have to be assessed in respect to each of the three plaintiff;? on each of the five causes of action. Hi.s Honor had ruled previouslv that the words were not privileged. VERDICT FOR PLAINTIFFS. The jury retired at 341 p.m. and returned at 4.20 with a verdict for plaintiffs, awarding nominal damages of £ls, being £1 for each of the three plaintiffs on each of the five causes of action.