ALLEGED SLANDER.

Taranaki Daily News, 22 June 1920, Page 7

ALLEGED SLANDER.

BOROUGH EMPLOYEES' DISMISSAL. CLAIM AGAINST ELECTRICAL ENGINEER. At the New .Plymouth Magistrate's Court yesterday," before Mr. T. A. B. Bailey, S.M., William Lawrence Baxter, of New Plymouth, wireman, sued Russell Howard Bartley, borough electrical engineer, for the sum of £SO damages for alleged slander. Mr. P. H. Fitzherbert appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. R. H. Quilliam for the defendant. The statement of claim set out that for some months prior to May 13, 1920, the plaintiff was a wireman in the service of the New Plymouth Borough Council, and under control of the 'defendant; that dn April 20, 1920, the defendant summarily dismissed the plaintiff from his employment without cause; that the plaintiff subsequently, on the 2Sth April, obtained smployment with Harry Patterson, electrical contractor, and that the defendant ori May 13, falsely and maliciously spoke and published of the plaintiff to the said Harry Patterson, the following words: "I understand that you have Baxter (meaning the plaintiff) working for you now. You will have to watch him. He is not too thorough and very slow. Apart from that he is an The plaintiff therefore claimed damages in the sum of £SO. Mr. Fitzherbert said that slander as affecting a man's employment was actionable without proof of damage, and quoted authorities bearing out this contention. In this case it was alleged that slander occuwed in the words: "You will have to watch him. He Is not too thorough and very slow." The words: "Apart from that he is an agitator," were not actionable, but had been put in in order to show that Bartley's attitude towards the plaintiff was not concerned so much with his employment as with his poltical activities. There could be no question that the words used referred to Baxter, and that they were directed against his employment as an electrical wireman. Harry Patterson, electrical contractor, in business in New Plymouth, said Bartley called witness out to the street and said, "I understand you have Baxter working for you." Witness replied that was so. Bartley then said: "You will have to watch him. He is very slow and not too thorough." Witness remarked that he didn't think thjs was so, and Bartley then said: '"Apart from that he is an agitator." The conversation ended then. Since Baxter had been in witness' employ he had given every satisfaction, and witness had nothing to say against him. To Mr. Quilliam: He was quite positive the words complained of were used by Bartley. Mr. Quilliam: And you attrttmte Bartley's attitude to malice? Witness: I can think of »o other reason. Mr. Quilliam: You know of no other reason why he should have been dismissed? Witness: That is so. William Lawrence Baxter, the plaintiff said he had been employed by the Borough, Council for approximately seven months. On one occasion witness worked overtime from /II p.m. until 6 a.m., and when he protested against receiving only 12s 9d for that work Bartley sacked him. He attributed the reason why he had been sacked to the fact that he had referred the question,of overtime to the Workers' Councfl, which was now pressing for an open inquiry in front of the Mayor and Councillors, as they insisted that witness had not had a square deal. Mr. Quilliam said that but for these proceedings the incident would not be of any consequence, and whatever harm the remark had done had been exaggerated by the proceedings. Bartley had made the statements without any thought of malice, but because he believed he was performing a duty to the public, the Borough Council, the Underwriters' Association, and to Mr. Patterson. There I wag no suggestion of malice. Russell Howard Bartley, the defendant, said he received a number of reports indicating that Baxter's work was unsatisfactory. Eventually he was able to get another man infinitely better than Baxter, and he accordingly issued instructions that Baxter be given a month's notice. The Magistrate intimated that he would giva his decision irr writing,