The claim is for damages for libel contained in: --

(a) an article in "Pacemaker" news publication of the 3rd defendant of

June 10, 1970;

(b) a letter of July 27, 1970 by the 2nd defendant Lian Eng Siong; and

(c) a letter of September 22, 1970 by the 1st defendant O.C. Nio with a

leaflet enclosed therewith entitled "How to identify a Twister".

The plaintiff was in the employ of the 3rd defendant as part-time agent before he resigned on July 15, 1970. At the time of resignation he was an agency supervisor. The 1st defendant Nio was at all material times 3rd defendants agency supervisor. He later became Unit Manager. The 2nd defendant was the Vice-President of the 3rd defendant company.

It is alleged and admitted by the defendants that the plaintiff joined the company as part-time agent. He was appointed agency organizer under the 1st defendant (agency supervisor) as from January 1, 1969 and was promoted agency supervisor with effect from January 1970.

It is also alleged and the defendants further admitted that in the official publication called "Pacemaker" of May 8, 1970 there appeared the following passage: --

"Off-shoots of NIO Unit the newly promoted A.J. PETER and ALLAN TAN

agencies continued to find places in the list of Leading Agencies for

the fourth month in succession, that is to say, these two new Agencies

were listed among the Leading Agencies ever since their promotions this

year. We fondly hope that they will creditably maintain their positions

all the time."

The plaintiff has further alleged that owing to interference by the 1st defendant of his agents he requested that he be released from the 1st defendants agency. In a letter of May 7, 1969 the 1st defendant confirmed that all his agents would be left alone nevertheless, he was not released from the agency despite protest from him until October 27, 1969.

Of the passage appearing in the "Pacemaker" the plaintiff alleged that he requested for a correction of the impression created that there was severance of relationship between him and the 1st defendant. Instead the 3rd defendant falsely and maliciously printed and published of him in an article in the "Pacemaker" of June 10, 1970 of his relationship with the 1st defendant as agency supervisor, the full text of which appears in A.J.A.P. I.

It is the plaintiffs contention that the words meant and he understood them to mean that he was "one of the scoundrels that make up a minority society" and the uncomplimentary and adverse reference in the article as the person who created friction applied to him. The article also referred to his conduct and character and the quotation that followed referred particularly to his request for publication of the correction.

The defendants admit that the plaintiff by letter gave notice of resignation to the 3rd defendant through the 2nd defendant on July 15, 1970 and the resignation was accepted by letter of July 28, 1970.

The plaintiff is also alleging that the day preceding the acceptance of his resignation the 2nd defendant as Vice-President of 3rd defendant, falsely and maliciously wrote and published in a letter of A.J.A.P. II of his conduct and profession. It is the plaintiffs contention that the letter referred and was intended to refer to him and the words meant and he understood them to mean that his quitting the company was because he was a failure therein.

The plaintiffs further allegation is that on September 22, 1970 the 1st defendant in his capacity as Unit Manager, falsely and maliciously published of his profession as insurance agent to one Karthigesu s/o Rengasamy a letter enclosed with leaflet "How to identify a Twister" -- A.J.A.P. IIIA and A.J.A.P. IIIB meaning and he understood to mean that the description "Twister" was applicable to his conduct and character.

The plaintiff has contended that consequent upon the acts of the defendants, he has been seriously injured in his chara