" 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= Ceear~ + . é@d that the agtdaw wes privileged, what the privilege is I a find it difficult to understand. 'tou have MreJames insolently going up to the witness outside the Vourt and accusing him of perjury. It seems to me there was no privileged occasion at allygunder such circumstances, and even if there were, the motive which prompted Mredames in doing it was some annoyance as to the fact of the prosecution of Hartley and of other persons who were about to be prosecuted,and apparently at some statement which Mr.Walsh had made which MreJames td considered was inaccurate. That is ell he could say in the box, that Walsh had made an inaccurate statement and he goes to Walsh and accuses him of perjury. I think there was no privileged oceasion,and even if there ware,then the excess of that occasion warrants the implica- T.2 tion it was made from a wrong motive and from actual malice, -65- Judgment 15.35.38 Ted and i so find. The only other question that + think now 4 need deal with is the question of damages.lt is not an occasion for heavy damages.The publication apparently is not known to have extended beyond two or three people' perhaps four, and I think mr.Walsh has behaved very pro- perly in saying that he does not want egg/damagess,but he Lae a wepted to have his reputation as a truthful and honor~ fa able man sustained before the publics That 1 think he is entitled toy so 14 will give him <50 damsges and the costs of this action, including the costs of the shorthand notese There will be judgment for £50. with costse ee ~66- Judgment 15.35.38