LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
THE STRANGE CASE OF MR. ODLUM
StR,—I beg to refer to your recent comments on the case of Odium v. Stratton, the full report of which Judgement should be read. It is dis- quieting. In regard to the claim that documents should not be produced in Court because "it would be injurious to the public interest that the same should be produced," Sir Donald Fergusson (then the Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture) signed a letter which began, " I am directed by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (i.e. Mr. R. S. Hudson) to require you not to disclose to the plaintiff (i.e. Mr. Odium) the documents in question." Mr. R. S. Hudson said in evidence, "I never had anything to do with it and never gave any such certificate," and Mr. Justice Atkinson said that Sir Donald " quite wrongly " wrote the operative words " I am directed." Sir Denys Stocks is solicitor to the Ministry of Agriculture and was solicitor to Mr. Stratton. He objected to the divulging of information as to whether the farm was graded A, B or C. Mr. Justice Atkinson found thr.t " the reason for the refusal to tell me how this farm was graded or the reason that Counsel was instructed to give is clearly contrary to the truth."
Mr. Justice Atkinson found that the then Chief Executive Officer for Wiltshire wrote a most important letter about Mr. Odium and his farm in 1942 which contained " scarcely a statement which was not an untruth and a deliberate untruth." Of other material evidence given orally by this witness his Lordship said, " That is just a lie. . . . It was quite untrue and Mr. Price (the Chief Executive Officer) knows it was untrue." Another member of the W.A.E.C. (a Mr. Frank Swanton) gave evidence as to ricks not being threshed, as to there not being a hard winter and as to the plaintiff having sold his cattle in and about 1940 " because they were diseased." All these statements were found to be contrary to the facts. Mr. R. S. Hudson's manager gave evidence which in material respects and on specific subjects was untrue and Mr. R. S. Hudson himself gave a somewhat curious explanation in regard to the condition of cottages on the farm when he bought. His manager said " that the cottages were very, very bad. . . . Some were better than others but on the whole they were very, very bad "; but Mr. R. S. Hudson had no difficulty in taking advantage of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, and thereby obtaining a subsidy for their repair.
This case did not come on suddenly ; the evidence was co-ordinated and the witnesses were on oath to tell the truth. The untruths can scarcely be dismissed as " slipping up over the language used in describing Mr. Odlum's farming" as Mr. C. W. Whatley writes to you on August [6th. Sir, I do not pursue the subject in further detail. The outstanding facts are that from 1926 Mr. Odium owned this farm in Wiltshire and farmed it well ; and then there were orders given by the Minister's (i.e. /sir. R. S. Hudson's) agents and refusals of help ; and in 1942 Mr. R. S. Hudson bought it. If these gentlemen " are incapable as private indi- viduals of action which would merit the censure of a Judge," as Mr. Frank Sykes writes to you, then truly " all power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Such are some of the men, and not the least distinguished, who had absolute power to dispossess farmers with- &an any hearing and did dispossess them ; and it ought to be heavy on the conscience of us all. This letter is over-long. I end with the dictum of another Judge in regard to men being members of a W.A.E.C. who might act vindictively and corruptly. He said, " Men guilty of such bad faith are unfit for public life or the society of decent people."—Yours truly, ERIC H. NORTH. Artillery Mansions, 75 Victoria Street, S.W.r
Previous page
