WALSH V. JAMES 15/1937

"

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.

cn ee

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT.

of Hts HONOUR me JUSTICE STARKE _

i | i i IS / 1937 / 78 7 Judgment delivered at LEEK ete ce NRT Hm to Lb Moarebd SIE...

IN THE HIGH COURT ) OF AUSTRALIA. )

WALSH

Plaintiff

JAMES

Defendants

Before EIS HONOR MR JUSTICE STARKE

On Tuesday, 15th March 1938, at 10.30 aems

( Second day of hearing )

: TUDGMENT s ~

Z lervelen w Katia ¥

HIS HONOR: This is an action by thomas Walsh who is an inspector under the Dridd Fruits Act against F.A.James who is a fruit

& grower and frifit dealer in South Australia.The action is

for slander and the allegation is that MrwJames said to Mr.Walsh: "When you are giving evidence on oath again be

careful MrsWalsh and do not commit perjury"s There is no

doubt in my mind that those words were used, and I accept substantially what the plaintiff and his witnesses said, particularly the evidence of Constable Taylor. Some other words were added,at the same time which have not been charged as part of the slander, but which wers part of the converse sation at the time, gnd thavedane if taken with tho words which were laid as the slander, indicate precisely what Mr Hames meants But for the purposes of my judgment 1

shall put them on one sidg_and simply consider whether the

Tel words which are laid as the slander are capable of the ~64- Judgment. 15.3.58

meaning that Walsh had committed a criminal of fence ,name= ly, perjurye In my opinion they are capable of that mean ing when the circumstances under which they were uttered come to be considered. Walsh on that morning had given evidence in a case against a man nemed Hartley who had purchasdd or sold,i am not sure which, to "r.James some fruit in contravention of the provisions of the Dried Fruits Acte On coming out of Court at lunch time after Walsh had given his evidence ,Mredames thought proper to go up to Walsh and use these words which are complained of. in those circumstances it seems to me the words are very capable of the meaning which it is said they bear, that in giving that evidence he had committed perjury and that he had better be careful not to do it again. 'the only other question 1 have to consider is whether words which are so Capable of a defamatory meaning would convey that méaning to reasonable persons, who heard them. i have no doubt again that they would convey that meaning to resson- able persons, and i so rind. Mr Travers has then suggect=