VERDICT FOR PLAINTIFF.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume I, Issue 132, 10 July 1914, Page 8

VERDICT FOR PLAINTIFF.

£BSO DAMAGES. SUCCESSFUL ON ALL COUNTS. ARTICLE WAS LIBELLOUS. SO WERE THE LETTERS.

After THE SUN went to press yesterday the hearing was continued in the Supreme Court, before his Honour Mr Justice Sim and a special jury of twelve, of the case in which Andrew Fairbairn, merchant, of Christchurch, is from the '' Otago Daily Times'' | Company, , alleged libels contained in the '' Otago Daily Times" and relating to the Cost |of Living Commission, of which the | plaintiff Fairbairn was a member. Sir John Findlay, K.C., with him Mr A.' F. Wright, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr W. C. McGregor, with him Mr C. Stringer, for the defendant company.

Four causes of action were recited: The first in respect to an article, and the remainder in respect to letters published.

The examination of James Hutchison, editor of the "Otago Daily Times," was continued.

Referring to the words, ' 1 Reads somewhat queerly," at the conclusion of the article, Sir John Findlay asked what witness meant by that. You say Berry's report was honestly used by the Commission, You say that Bowyer's statements could not be substantiated and so the Commission struck them out? —No, I do not say that. Don't you impute that the concealing of Bowyer's blunder was in the interests of certain members of the Commission ?—No, absolutely. Re-examined by Mr M 'Gregor, witness read the letter from Mr Gordon, on wliieh he had based his article. "I thought," said the writer, "that a duty certainly rested upon someone to explain the liberties that have been taken by the Commission as the public is entitled to a full explanation." • Mr M'Gregor: You assumed the statements in that letter were true? — Yes, they had not been answered. Albert Arthur Howes, commercial traveller of Dunedin, at present travelling for R. Hudson and Co., and formerly for -Neill and Co., said he called at Balclutha once a fortnight. When he was with JSTeill and Co. he called there once a month. The Import Agency Company did business with witness 's firm. When he was travelling for Neill and Co. he co'ild do no business with the Import Agency. He tried to do so and saw Mr Thompson on the subject. The first time he saw him he was told he had instructions from Mr Mackenzie not to give any business to Neill and Co. unless he could bay better there than anywhere else. The next time he called Thompson said to him: '' You know it is no good you coming to see me. All the business we can we give to Fairbairn, Wright, and Co.'' He knew Mr Thos. Mackenzie and had seen him in Balclutha frequently eight years ago. Of later years he had been there very seldom. Sir John Findlay asked no questions.

William R. Gordon, a member of the firm of Neill and Co., Dunedin, and chairman in 19.12 of the Dunedin Merchants' Association, said on June 10, 1912, ho wrote a letter to the Daily Times.'' Mr M'Gregor tendered a. paper of June 6 (containing an article referring io Mr Fairbairn) as evidence, but his Honour ruled it irrelevant, and on Mr M'Gregor's application, noted the point. Mr M'Gregor (to witness): What did you mt>au by "grind his axe?"—At that time Mr Fairbairn had been writing letters to the Minister of Commerce, the Attorney-General, and to each member of Parliament.

Sir John Findlay submitted that the witness could not be asked what he meant by his words. A person who wrote a libel could not be asked what lit" meant by it. Mr M'Gregor: What were the circumstances in relation to Mr Fairbairn 's actions that caused you to write those words? —The letters which he had written denouncing the merchants for breaches of the Commercial Trusts Act.

In a later letter signed' '' L.R.W.,'' it is said the whole Commission had been appointed to enable one of the members to attack his business competitors. I think we can assume that was Mr Fairbairn? —Yes. .

Was there anything done by Mr Fairbairn in Dunedin that leads you to suppose that was his object in going on the Commission? —Yes.? Witness said he had picked a few items out which would take a little time to go into. Try and give something that shows Mi Fairbairn was on the Commission to further his own interests.

Sir John Findlay: If these are to g6 in Mr Fairbairn should have been asked about them.

His Honour: No, he was not asked. Sir John Findlay: It seems to open a very interminable field.

His Honour: I think Mr Gordon cannot refer to something that happened afterwards to justify any allegations. Mr M'Gregor: I do not suggest that. (To the witness): This was before the (iate of the letters, Mr Gordon? —Yes. It was at the first sittings in Dunedin.

The witness dealt with the Commission's report and other documents at some length, and drew attention to a list of articles given as being obtainable only through the Merchants' Association. There ware, he said, goods in iliat list that Mr Fairbairn imported himself.

The witness proceeded to refer to evidence given by several witnesses who were examined by Mr Fairbairn in regard to imported goods which were allegedly '' controlled'' by the Merchants ' Association. The point of the reference was that the firm of Fairbairn, Wright, was importing several of the supposedly "controlled" goods, and that Fairbairn must have known that the witnesses were giving inaccurate evidence.

Sir John Findlay: But Mr Fairbairn is not responsible for the answers of these witnesses. .

Mr M'Gregor replied that they were rairbairn's witnesses. Sir John: I hope you are not sible for all the answers you get from your witnesses. (Laughter.) Mr M'Gregor: I don't have my witnesses under such good control as Mr Fairbairn in the early days of the Commission. /

The witness added that it was ap

parent to anyone where ' Fairbairn's questions were leading. Had there been a fair number of commercial men on the Commission the merchants would not have refused to attend. It was because there was only one commercial man on it, who had attacked them in different ways, that they would not attend. THE SUGAR CASE. Sir John Findlay: Your firm, Neill and Co., was interested in the litigation under the Commercial Trusts Act? —Yes. • It was alleged that your firm, with others, formed a ring or combination, to the detriment of the public interest? —Yes. Did your* firm seek to answer that charge?—We were advised by' our solicitor, Mr Skerrett, that ijt was a matter of law, and that he would not advise us to appear. You did not go into the box and deny the charges made? —No. Is it you (the Merchants' Association) or the "Otago Daily Times" which is really fighting this case?—l don't know anything further about it, except that I was subpoenaed. As far as I know there is no connection between the two. You are not chairman of the association now?—No, but I would know, as I am on the sub-committee.

If it was untrue, it would be discreditable to say of a member of a Commission that he was on it to grind his own axe? —If it was untrue, yes. His Honour: It would depend on what his axe was.

Mr M'Gregor: Fairbairn had two axes, and his own was more to him than that of the public. Sir John- Well, you "axed" him a good deal -yesterday without much success. (Laughter.)

PLAINTIFF RECALLED. The plaintiff was recalled to give rebutting evidence. He said that all his questions to the witnesses were relevant to the scope of the enquiry. In regard to Coleman's goods, he said that his firm sold them under protest. They were compelled by the Merchants' Association to charge 14 per cent, profit wher-e previously the goods had been handled at 2i per cent. In regard to a certain brand of marmalade, they were informed that they could noi be supplied until they joined the Merchants' Association.

This closed the evidence, and., after consultation it was decided to adjourn till nexfe&day, the jury not relishing the idea of sitting till midnight to finish the case.

THE . ISSUES. When the court resumed this morning, it was announced . that the : following issues had been framed:1. Does the article of October 15, 1912, charge the members of the Cost of Living Commission or any of them with having dishonestly suppressed part of the evidence of. the witnesses Bowyer and Jameson in the official report of such evidence?

2. If so, is, that charge true? 3. Is the said article a libel on the plaintiff ? 4. Does the letter signed William E. Gordon accuse the plaintiff of having accepted the office of . Commissioner for some improper purpose? 5. If so, is that assertion true? 6. Is the said letter a libel on the plaintiff 1 7. Does the letter signed "Merchant" allege that the plaintiff was appointed a Commissioner on account of the business relations between himself and the Hon. Thos. Mackenzie?

8. Was the plaintiff appointed a Commissioner for that reason?

9. Is the said letter a libel on the plaintiff ? 10. Does the letter signed "L.R.W." allege that the whole of the said Commission was appointed for the purpose of enabling the plaintiff to attack his business competitors and to further the interests of his own firm 1 ?

11. Was the said Commission appointed for that purpose?

12. Is the said letter a libel on the plaintiff? 13. What damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to. recover from the defendant in respect of—(a) His first cause of action? (b) His second cause of action? (c) His third cause of action? (d) His fourth cause of action? MR M 'GREGOR'S ADDRESS.

Addressing the jury, Mr M'Gregor said it was for them to say which case they preferred—that of the plaintiff or the defendants. He would ask them to consider the series of alleged libels on the plaintiff. A libel had been said to be something written and published and which injured the reputation of anyone and made people think' I 'worse of him than' he deserved. The question was, did the words appreciably affect the reputation of the plaintiff? The first I question they had to put to themselves was what really was the reputation of the plaintiff, considered as a Royal Commissioner? Did the plaintiff, as he alleged, serve on this Royal Commission honestly and fairly, in the sole interests of the public, or was he there to serve his own private ends, to discredit his business competitors and so improve his own business. He would' ask them to look at what led up to the alleged libels. They had the letters from the plaintiff's firm to the Attorney-General, the Minister of Commerce, and members of Parliament, i The. Ward Administration, which was then in power, did not appoint a commission. The Mackenzie Government, which then came into power, almost immediately appointed a Royal Commission to enquire into the very questions raised by Fairbairn, Wright and Co., and appointed Mr Fairbairn a member of it. In the beginning of June, 1912, when the Commission was sitting, three letters appeared, and the leader complained of appeared in October after the Commission had concluded. Then there was the letter from the plaintiff's solicitors in October, 1912, giving notice of the action and asking for neither an apology, withdrawal, nor explanation. The defendants replied, denying that the letter bore the strained construction put on it by the plaintiff. Then "for six months nothing further was heard, and the "Otago Daily Times" naturally concluded that nothing further would be heard of it. Then the writ was issued. Did Fairbairn's attitude, in waiting this unconscionable time, impress the jury as the action of a man who had been foully libelled? Counsel invited the jui-y to put themselves in Fairbairn's position. They would at once have either inflicted personal chastisement, or instructed their solicitor to i)roceed against the newspaper. Sir John Findlay: He instructed his solicitors.

Mr M'Gregor: The fact is that nothing was done for six months. That is not the attitude of a man who had been wronged. He waited till the documents and evidence had largely disappeared, and then tried to make money out of the result. For two years he took no action in regard to the letters in the '' Times'' and "Press," and now he tells us that he will deal with Godfrey and the others when he has finished with the "Otago Daily Times.'' THE APPOINTMENT. Mr M 'Gregor said that the jury should

consider whether Fairbairn was properly on the Commission. Was it a proper thing for him to sit on that Commission after the attitude he had taken up towards the Merchants' Association. They should also consider whether the evidence was in fact suppressed from the official record, with, or without the sanction of the witness interested. TROUBLE ON HIMSELF.

Fairbairn had brought the trouble on himself. Was it not an indecent thing for him to try a matter in which he was personally interested, and sit in judgment on his own case? Fairbairn's first impulse was to refuse to act on the Commission, but he sat and acted throughout, and took a very active interest in the proceedings. As to the leading article in the '' Otago Daily Times,'' Mr Fairbairn had concealed any knowledge he had of the real facts when the two letters appeared in the "Press" and "Times," before the leading article appeared in the "Otago Daily Times." Mr Godfrey's letter to the "Press" and '"Times" was absolutely the same as that which appeared in the '' Otago Daily Times." Mr Godfrey, despite Mr Fairbairn's depreciation, was a man»of high standing, and he had drawn pointed attention to the omissions of evidence from the official report.

FAIR COMMENT. The jury would have to consider whether the publications were libellous or fair comment. They should also consider whether they were technically libellous, and whether Fairbairn was entitled to any damages after his extraordinary delay and his inexplicable conduct. This was not a conflict between Fairbairn and the Merchants' Association. The '' Otago Daily Times," with other newspapers, from the first took up the position that it was a wrong thing for Fairbairn to sit on the Commission. It admitted letters against him and would have admitted letters in his favour. The discrepaacies in the evidence had been pointed out, and an explanation asked, but no explanation was given. The article was written in absolute good faith. The editor had gone into the box and given the jury a frank account of the circumstances under which he wrote the article. He was inspired by his duty as a public journalist, comnxentiiig on a matter of public importance. The article did not name Fairbairn, and it did not refer to him. No other member. of. the Commission had taken any action. Why should Mr Fairbairn put the cap on his own head?

PRESS COMMENT. It was one of the rights to comment severely on. the public actions of public men. The Prime Minister, Judges of the Supreme Court, and even lawyers came under the editorial lash, and it.was in the interests of the public that it shoiild be so. Most wise people took no notice when they were so attacked. During the last few days every newspaper in the country had stated that the Prime Minister of the coikitry held his seat by bribery and corruption. Was the Prime Minister going to proceed against them for libel?

Sir John Findlay: He could not. Mr M'Gregor; Could not? Sir John: It was in a report of Parliamentary proceedings. Mr M'Gregor: Oh! Privilege! Privilege! The old claim! Sir John: It is one of the places where you can say what you like. ; i Mr M 'Gregor observed that Mr Massey would not proceed. Sir John : Mr Massey himself brought an action against the "New Zealand Times" when he got the chance. Jvlr M'Gregor: We know all about that, Sir John. Sir John laughed heartily.

MUST BE ACCUBATE. Mr M 'Gregor continued that the article insisted on the necessity for the reports of Royal Commissions to be accurate. The report was not accurate, as Bowyer's evidence was omitted, and it was not explained whether it was done with the sanction of the witness or not. It was quite clear that such a thing gave an opportunity to Commissions to improperly suppress/ the evidence. Why should the worst possible cc/nstruction . be placed upon the article? Mr Hutchison swore that Fairbairn was not in his mind; and why should anyone jump to the conclusion that Fairbairn was aimed at?

THE LETTERS. The letters did refer to Fairbairn/and they referred to his attitude towards the, Merchants' Association, Counsel claitfred that the association, represented by Mr Skerrett in Wellington, was absolutely refused a hearing by the Commission. When lie (Mr M'Gregor) went before the Couunission in Dunedin the Commissioners professed to be extremely anxious to have his explanation. But when Mr Skerrett went before them, his mouth was closed. It was Fairbairn who insisted on Mr Skerett not being heard. It was clear from the evidence that so far from serving the public interests, Fairbairn's action in taking liia seat stopped the public being served by preventing the merchants' evidence being made available to the public. The merchants would not have had any chance if they had gone before Fairbairn on the Commission. Fairbairn had gone on the Commission with a violent animus against the Merchants' Association and with his mind made up. It was established that he had sat on the Commission for the purpose of punishing the merchants. Fairbairn had brought all the trouble on himself. It was extremely significant that the Commission should have been set up immediately the Mackenzie Government came into power and that Fairbairn should be one first appointed to it. The reason, he suggested, was because Fairbairn was a. business friend of the Prime Minister. Dealing'with the amount of damages claimed, Mr M 'Gregor said Fairbairn had not been injured and did not think he had been. Why did he not sue the defendant ii» Dunedin, where a thousand copies of the paper were read to one in Christchurch? Whatever Fairbairn had done for the public he had done- very well for himself. There were two Fairbairns. There was Fairbairn the economist, the philanthropist, the man who took a deep interest in questions of mercantile business, and there .was Fairbairn the business man, keen, shrewd, acute, and successful, and combining the interests of the public with a very fine regard for his own business. If Fairbairn had suffered, he also had an action against Mr Godfrey and against the Christchurch "Press." Sir .lohn Findlay: "He has nothing of the kind and has no intention of trying it.'' Mr M'Gregor: "I say he has an action if he likes to pursue it. Then he lias' an action against the 'Lyttelton Times.' "

Sir John Findlay: "That is not so either.''

Mr M'Gregor • suggested that one farthing set against the issues for damages would be more appropriate than £250.

THE PLAINTIFF'S SIDE. Sir John Findlay said one of the commonest practices of the bar when counsel was addressing a common jury (and the commoner the jury the more marked the practice) to endeavour to

inflame the minds of the jury against a man because he was a wealthy man. He had never heard that so used as his friend had used it before a special jury of intelligent men. What was it if Mr Fairbairn had made his way in the world? What if he had won? He had won honestly and under the law. It was one of the best signs of a weak case. The jury should ask themselves what were the charges made here. They were asked whether the plaintiff as one of the CommissioViers, suppressed, tampered with, and faked the official document. He was said to have done that to evidence given on oath. It was said he did it for the disgraceful .purpose of misleading the people of New Zealand and Parliament. Did he do it, and did he do it in his own interests to serve his own ends so that the evidence was faked to justify a dishonest report? That was what, the article plainly imputed. His friend had boldly maintained that article was fair and so far as it related to statements of fact was true. What did the author of the article say? Did, they recollect the somewhat sorry spectacle the author had made? What was the substance of Mr Hutchison's evidence? It was this: I cannot justify it, I cannot msike charges of suppression against the Commissioners. When the author of the article said I admit the charges .are untrue, and such charges cannot be made, how could Mr M'Gregor plead justification? Sir John said he condemned the paper out of the mouth of its editor. He quoted what Mr Hutchison had said. He had admitted that the article was open to the construction that the Commissioners suppressed evidence. The editor admitted that he did not think the Commission suppressed information. The' editor had given away his friend's whole case. His Honour would direct the jury that it was not necessary that Mr Fairbairn's name should have been mentioned. But Mr Fairbairn had drawn the fire all along the line, and the article would never have been written if it had not been meant as a blow at Mr Fairbairn. The three last libels referred to the plaintiff expressly. The charge against Mr Fairbairn was that in one of the shabbiest ways possible he suppressed one of the men's evidence (and another's evidence) to advance his own interests and so that he might further his warfare in competition with the other merchants. They should put themselves in Mr Fairbairn's place. How would they like to read such charges . against themselves? Would they sit down under a charge of that kind! He took leave to think no man with self-respect would allow anybody to make "such charges against his honour. Mr Fairbairn was bound to go to the Court to ask a jury to convict him or discharge him from the imputations that had been made Within a few days of the appearance of the article Mr Fairbairn had gone to his solicitors. The delays were the law's delays, not Mr Fairbairn's. It was partly secured by his learned friend. His learned friend had complained that he, plaintiff, had not asked for an apology, but it was quite a common practice' to issue a writ at once. Where a letter was written to a paper asking it to name its solicitor, it gave the paper a chance .to enquire, and ascertain its facts. Why did not the editor communicate with the official reporters and find oiit whether the evidence of 1 Bowyer and Jameson had been suppressed. So far from the delay being against the plaintiff, it was against the ''Times," which had not taken one step to ,secure an investigation. Mr'M'Gregor: We assumed that the matter was dropped.

EDITOR AND COUNSEL. Sir John: Here you have counsel standing to his guns, telling you that the charges are true, that evidence was in fact tampered with and suppressed. The man who writes the article denies it Look at that picture and on this! Sir John exclaimed dramatically, pointing first to the witness box and then to the counsel for the defendant. "What expresses the difference? Malice!: Malice! Malice! Behind the ' 1 Otago Daily Times ; 7 lies the wealth, the force, the influence of the Merchants' Association!" '

JMr M'Gregor laughed. •'lt is, the association we are fighting, not the paper, ? ' Sir John continued, "and it iS because that is true that. Mr M'Gregor has to come here and make cut a worse case than the writer of the article makes out! " "COACHING WITNESSES."

His learned friend had asked Fairbairn if he did not "coach" the witnesses. The jury could recall the long line of scoff and scorn and insinuation with which his learned friend had pursued an honest witness. There had been the insinuation that Mr Mackenzie financed the plaintiff, which the plaintiff had denied. "Look behind, my. i'riend," said Sir John, dramatically pointing to the benches occupied by an apparently inoffensive public, "and you will see the men who we are fighting to-day, and the malice that is behind my learned friend's instructions." "TIIE POISONED STILETTO."

The warfare carried on against Pairbairn was not conducted in, a fair and open way. "No man has the right to use the poisoned stiletto of defamaction to injure an opponent, and charge an innocent man with conduct which means a crime. If a newspaper can hurl these attacks at a man who takes position on a Royal Commission then God help your Royal Commissions! All this rhetoric from uiy learned friend is due to party abuse. It became useful, for party purposes, that the Commission should be a stick with which to hammer a late Government. And God help either the record or reputation that gets into the filthy vortex of party abuse! " Mr M'Gregor again laughed. . Sir John: My friend has never been in politics, or he would not laugh. Mr M'Gregor: I haA'e never been in politics.

Sir John: I hope he will never go there. I have too much respect for him.

HOW MUCH? Sir John, in conclusion, referred to the question of damages. These could not be measured in pounds, shillings, and pence; The libel might penetrate to every part of the world, to the injury of the plaintiff. He invited the jury to consider the question with the cold impartiality of a judge.

SUMMING- UP. His Honour, in summing up, said that he would occupy the attention of the jury for only a lew minutes. TJie jury had the article before them, and it was for them to say whether it did not charge the Commissioners with dishonestly suppressing evidence. It was headed "Faked Official Documents." The ordinary meaning of '' faked'' was that some alteration had been made, not accidentally, but improperly. It was difficult to escape the conclusion 41iat the article did make the charge of dishonest suppression, and it seemed to be plain to demonstration that the charge was wholly without foundation. It was plain that the Commissioners

had nothing more to do with the omission of Bowyer 'a evidence than the jury had. As to Jameson's' supplementary statement, it had been shown that it was handed to the clerk of the Commission after Jameson had concluded his evidence, and it was not part of the evidence. Miss Rout was quite right in treating the evidence given by him as consisting of the statement read by him to the Commissioners, and his crossexamination. The Commission had nothing whatever to do with the supplementary statement, and any charge of dishonest suppression, as applied to the Commission, was absolutely without foundation. The charge of dishonest suppression was a serious libel, and if it was directed against all the Cominis-. sioners it was a libel against each and every one, and against Fairbairn. If the jury found that the libel was not against all the members of the Commission, the question would be whether ordinary people, reading it, would understand it to contain a charge against Fairbairn—whether he was one of the persons attacked. The fact that the writer of the article did not intend to attack Fairbairn was wholly irrelevant. What would the ordinary reasonable man understand the article to mean? If it was a libel on Fairbaiirn, he was entitled to recover damages.

GRINDING HIS AXE. His Honour then referred to the letter containing the phrase " grind his axe." The letter must be considered by itself and not in the light of other letters. A Royal Commission differed from a jury. It merely set out to investigate certain questions. It did not determine the rights between parties. There was no accused and no accuser present. The Commission merely investigated and reported, and it appeared to his Honour there was no objection to Mr Fairbairn going on the Commission because he held very strong views on some particular point to be' investigated. Where they had a Commission constituted to investigate the subject of, among others, the operation of trusts, if they had on the Commission a gentleman who knew a good deal about the operations of these trusts, his Honour thought he would be a very useful man indeed. He could see no reason why he should not go on. It might not be good for himself—he might get himself into hot water. It was clear, from the that. Mr Fairbairn was engaged in a campaign against the Merchants' Association. If he went upon the Commission. for the purpose of exposing what he regarded as the injustices of the Merchants' Association, it seemed to his Honour that would not be improper at #ll, and if all that the letter meant was that plaintiff went on. the Commission for the purpose of exposing the iniquities of the Merchants' Association it could not be said he went there for an improper purpose. If the letter accused plaintiif of going on the Commission for an improper purpose, then it would be libellous. The next suit dealt with a letter signed "Merchant." The point of that letter was contained in the allegation that Mr Fairbairn was appointed to the Commission because of business relations with the Hon. T. Mackenzie* In the letter signed "V.R.W.," it was stated that the Commission-was appointed to enable plaintiff to attack his business competitors and to advance th« x interests of his own firm. . If the alle» gation was not true it was for the jury to say whether it constituted a libel on the plaintiff. ; THE QUESTION OF DAMAGES. As to damages, if the article wsu,' libellous the jury was entitled to give the plaintiff substantial damages, even though they had no evidence of loss. To make- a charge of that sort against a man was- certainly calculated to injure, his character seriously. In considering the question of damages the jury was entitled to look at the conduct of the defendant company since the time of the libel, and they-were entitled to con- , sidor the attitude it took up during the trial.' Mr Hutchison, the editor, did not take any trouble to find out the facts as to Mr letter other than to " look at the official report. Then ia letter was written by the plaintiff's solicitors. y When the writ was .

issued one . would have thought they would have taken the trouble to find aut the facts and find out how. utterly groundless were any charges that the Commission suppressed evidence. They appeared to have made no attempt to find out the truth, and right up to the present time ij: had .been' said that the charge was true. -The jury was/entitled to 'take that fact intovconsideration in fixing the damages. The jury retired at 12.30 p.m.

THE VERDICT. The jury returned to Court at 2.10p.m., with the following answers to the issues:— . 1. Does the article of October 18, 1912, charge the members of the Cost of Living Commission or any of them with having dishonestly suppressed part of the evidence of the witnesses Bowyer and Jameson in the official report of such evidence?—YES. - 2. If so, is that charge true?—NO. ; 3. Is the said article a libel on the plaintiff?—YES. 4. Does the letter signed William R, Gordon accuse the plaintiff of having accepted the office of Commissioner for some improper purpose?—YES. 5. If so, is that assertion true?.— NO. 6. Is the said letter a libel on the plaintiff?—YES. 7. Does the letter signed "Merchant' ' allege that the plaintiff was appointed a Commissioner on account of the business relations between himself and the Hon. Thos. Mackenzie? —YES. 8. Was the plaintiff appointed a Commissioner for that reason?—— NO. 9. Is the said letter a libel on the plaintiff?—YES. H 10." Does the letter signed ' "j.R.W." allege that the whole of the said Commission was appointed for the purpose''of enabling the plaintiff to attack his business competitors and to further the interests of his own firm?—YES. 11. Was the said Commission appointed for that purpose?—NO. 12. Is the said letter a libel on the plaintiff?-—YES. 13. What damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover from the defendant in respect of—(a) His first cause of action?—£2so. (b) His second cause of action?— £250. (c) His third cause of action?— £IOO. (d) His fourth oause of action? — . £250. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff on the motion of Sir John Findlay for £BSO, with costs according to scale, and witnesses' expenses and disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar. It is understood the costs will be between £2OO and'£3oo.