Mexborough & Swinton Times — Saturday, 26 July 1924
Denaby Slander Case
Local Labour Leaders in Conflict
Aspersions on a Club Steward
Apology and Settlement
At Leeds Assizes on Tuesday, the slander action brought by William Leonard Worsley, of Denaby Main, against Thomas Hill, of Conisborough, was heard by Justice Rigby Swift and a jury. Mr. John Neal conducted the case for the plaintiff, and Mr. R. Stewart, K.C., for the respondent. Mr. W. P. Donald, instructed by Messrs. Gichard and Co., of Rotherham, held a watching brief for the New Conisborough Labour Club.
Mr. Neal said that plaintiff was steward of the New Conisborough Labour Club and one of its first trustees. He occupied an important position in the public life of New Conisborough, having been a prominent official of the Yorkshire Miners’ Association, and he was a member of the Conisborough Urban Council. The defendant held a similar important position in local public life. It would be clear that it was of the utmost importance to plaintiff that his reputation for integrity should be preserved intact.
Grave Reflection
Defendant had said early in October last: “There is a pretty mess here. Len (the plaintiff) is a lot of money short. He is over £100 short. His books show he is short.”
On 9th January of this year, defendant said to another man: “That’s hard tell o’ this here rub, hasn’t tha’ Len’s deficiency? I have had a drunken —— shifted out of the other club, and a pugilist shifted out of here, and I am going to have yon —— shifted, too.”
As a matter of fact, said Mr. Neal, there was a drunken steward removed from the old club, and a pugilist was removed from a similar position. It was because of the latter’s removal that plaintiff took over the position.
The two statements of defendant’s quoted bore the gravest reflection on plaintiff’s character. Such words suggested that plaintiff was a dishonest man and a dishonest steward.
“Frivolous” Defence
The defence was rather a curious one. It was, first of all, that the words were not spoken, that they did not have the meaning that the plaintiff had attributed to them. Again, that all the words objected to were spoken on a privileged occasion. That meant that if two men had a common interest in some matter which they needed to discuss, and one of them, in the course of discussion, said something that was untrue, the law would not punish the man. But if they used that defence, the defence must show that the words were spoken on a common interest, and that they did not go beyond the legal protection offered. If the statements were made maliciously and recklessly, and not in a common interest, they were not covered by that protection.
Another defence was that the words spoken were simply vulgar abuse. He failed to see how they could be privileged statements spoken in a common interest, and at the same time “vulgar abuse.”
But he asked them to note that the defence made no plea of justification for the statements. That meant that it was not open to the defendant to suggest that any of the words spoken were true.
To proceed to the happenings that led up to the slander, the management of the club—as not infrequently happened—was not all that it should be. The steward had to look after the selling, and to account for the cash and stock. Both the statements complained of were made while the defendant knew the matter was under investigation, and after the chairman of the committee had impressed on each member that the matter should not be talked about until the investigation was completed. The defendant had since been before the committee and received a vote of censure because of this.
Apology Demanded
On the 11th March of this year a letter was sent from Messrs. Arthur Neal and Co., solicitors for the plaintiff, pointing out to defendant that he had stated that plaintiff was “£101 3s. 6d. short on the first half-year’s accounts, that this had been concealed, and that the committee of the club had passed a vote of confidence in Mr. Worsley, and a vote of ‘no confidence’ in defendant.” The letter invited Mr. Hill to make an apology, or they would take proceedings on Mr. Worsley’s behalf. No reply was received to that letter. That was why, much against his will, the plaintiff had had to come before them to ask for a verdict that would give such damages as would show that that kind of accusation could not be made with impunity.
Plaintiff’s Evidence
The plaintiff then went into the box, and gave his address as 35, Annerley Street, Denaby Main. He had held the position of steward of the New Conisborough Labour Club since February, 1920, and was one of the founders and first trustee of the club in 1919.
Mr. Neal: And have certain things happened in reference to your stewardship, and you have since been cleared of any imputation of either incompetence or dishonesty?
“Yes.”
Cross-examined by Mr. Stewart, Mr. Worsley said he had known Mr. Hill for about 12 years.
Mr. Hill was a member of the committee of the club, wasn’t he?—He was treasurer.
Up to this unfortunate occurrence you were both taking an active part in the affairs of the club and the district?—That is so.
Did you employ Mr. Brocklesby to make a half-yearly audit and statement of the club’s accounts?—The club did that.
Did Mr. Brocklesby on this occasion present a balance sheet showing that the profits were only £83—and did not see that, on the 26th September the president intimated that the treasurer was not satisfied with the amount of profit, and that there was a deficiency of £104 odd. I disputed it, and said that so far as I was concerned everything was in order. On the same day there was an arrangement that an investigation should be made.
Arrangement With the Club
Mr. Justice Swift: Was anything arranged as to what was to happen in the meantime?—There was a special meeting the same evening. I attended before the sub-committee which had been appointed, and the chairman told me that they were going thoroughly into the figures, and that they were going to stop £1 per week from my salary until the end of the year, pending the result of the year’s balance sheet. If everything worked out right they would refund all the money. I protested, and said I did not accept any liability. I interviewed the president, treasurer and secretary later the same night, and they asked me what I was going to do. I was so confident that everything would work out right that I accepted the proposed arrangement under protest.
Justice Swift: I hope you have got it all back.—Yes, sir, I have.
Mr. Stewart: At the end of the year there was a further balance sheet prepared, and it was perfectly obvious that you had done nothing wrong by the club. I want it to be perfectly clear that we do not suggest anything otherwise.—That is so.
And are you still steward of the club?—Yes.
By Mr. Neal: Defendant was on the committee of investigation.
By Mr. Justice Swift: The investigation was made in January.
A Settlement
At this point the counsel in the case conferred, and Mr. Stewart then made a statement. It was a great pity, he said, that that case should have arisen. Defendant might have used some strong language, but he never had any intention of imputing a fraud. Apparently there was a shortage as disclosed by Mr. Brocklesby’s statement to the club. If the defendant had said anything which could be said to impute any sort of crime or fraud by the plaintiff it was entirely and absolutely withdrawn.
After hearing the plaintiff they could not have any doubt at all that that was the proper course to take. His friend had accepted that apology made in open court, and his client was undertaking to pay the costs of the case.
Mr. Neal intimated his acceptance of the apology and undertaking.
Honour Vindicated
Justice Swift: And that simply makes more apparent what was already abundantly apparent—that the plaintiff is a gentleman of the highest respectability, and of absolutely unimpeachable character.
The case was thus settled, defendant paying costs.