ALLEGED LIBEL

Wairarapa Times-Age, 13 May 1943, Page 3

ALLEGED LIBEL

CLAIM AGAINST T. A. HISLOP BROUGHT BY FORMER CLUB SUPERVISOR. SUPREME COURT HEARING. (By Telegraph—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, This Day. Claiming £5Ol damages for alleged libel in a letter accepting her resignation from the position of supervisor of the Combined Services Women's Club, Hannah’s Buildings, Lambton Quay, Wellington, Myra Cohen proceeded against Thomas Atkinson Hislop, solicitor, Wellington, chairman of the Wellington Metropolitan Patriotic Committee, in the Supreme Court, Wellington, yesterday. The case is being heard by the Chief Justice. (Sir Michael Myers) and a jury of 12, Mr W. E. Leicester is appearing for plaintiff, and the defence is being conducted by Mr G. G. G. Watson, with him Mr W. P. Shorland.

The passage in the letter of which complaint is made is as follows: “He further directs me to say that had the resignation not been sent in, you would have been dismissed for gross misconduct,” and it was claimed that defendant falsely and maliciously published the letter to Mr Vincent Ward, M.L.C., honorary secretary of the Wellington Provincial Patriotic Council and of the Wellington Metropolitan Patriotic Committee, and to Basil Otto Peterson, honorary treasurer of the committee. It was claimed that the words meant and were intended to mean that plaintiff had been guilty of dishonest, immoral and dishonourable conduct, and for that reason was unfitted for her duties and would have been dismissed had she not resigned. In his statement of defence, defendant put upon plaintiff onus of proof that he dictated the letter or published it, as alleged, to Messrs. Ward and Peterson. He denied that the meaning alleged was intended, or that plaintiff had been injured in her reputation. He also claimed that the words were incapable of the meaning attached to them by plaintiff, and in their ordinary meaning were true in substance and fact; that the words were fair and bona fide comment on a matter of public interest; that they were used without malice on a privileged occasion, and in an honest belief they were true; and that publication to Messrs. Ward and Peterson was by virtue of their offices. Defendant also claimed that his solicitors had informed plaintiff’s solicitors that there was no intention to reflect in any personal way on defendant’s character; that the words had been unreservedly withdrawn and defendant had apologised for them; and that he had offered to publish, without comment and at his own expense, the correspondence between the solicitors. He claimed not only that these matters mitigated any damages, but that plaintiff could not have suffered any damages whatsoever.

Mr Leicester said that the details of the club were arranged by a hostel committee under the Patriotic Committee, Mrs Hislop being a member of the former. From the start of the club there had been interference by Mrs Hislop with plaintiff’s running of the club, and it was contended that Mrs Hislop did not have the sanction of the committee in this. Finally Mrs Hislop took the control of the club out of plaintiff’s hands. She therefore resgined. The letter, Mr Leicester stated, was dictated by defendant to Miss Riddick, an employee of the Metropolitan Committee, after an earlier letter had been dictated by Mr Ward and cancelled.