Howe and McColough v Lees [1910] HCA 67

ete.

OM AY

Appl ie

Wns Bilenry Bon

Been, Heres as Aer | A. 361 GUS AE 204 ALR 193

-{HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.)

WWE AND McCOLOUGH . .. ._.. APPELLANTS; DEFENDANTS. AND < 5 : : Z . RESPONDENT.

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA.

nder—Privileged occusion—Association of traders—Report as to, , oF A. for goods purchased by customer—Communication to members— 1910, interest—Duty—Malice. =e,

| The defendants, a firm of stock salesmen, were members of an association of ss Seawaas sept. a hy

stock salesmen who carried on their business in the Bendigo sale-yards. By "4, Qct' 10, he rules of the association it was provided that stock sold by members at the — -- were to be settled for within four days after the sale; that, ifa pur- SypNey, did not pay within that time, the member effecting the sale should, Nov. 29. toa penalty in case of his not doing so, report that fact to the secre: Git, of the association, who should report the names of all purchasers in Barton, to the other members ; and that no member should deliver stock to a Isaacs and er in default except on a legal tender of the price being made. ED,

'The plaintiff, a stockdealer, who had been dealing at the Bendigo sale-yards

'some years, bought cattle from the defendants and paid cash for them, but

defendants reported him to the secretary as being in default, and the

informed the other members accordingly. In an action by the tiff against the defendants for defamation,

Held (Isaacs J. dissenting), that the occasion was privileged, and, there ng been no misuse of the occasion, that the action would not lie.

i _ Peating v. Watson, (1909) V.L.R., 198; 30 A.L.'l., 176, overruled. ntosh v. Dun, (1908) A.C., 390, distinguished.

on of the Supreme Court of Victoria reversed.

HIGH COURT (1910.

H.C. or A. Appear from the Supreme Court of Victoria.