LIBEL ACTION ENDS.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 61, Issue 187, 22 May 1941, Page 3

LIBEL ACTION ENDS.

DAMAGES AT THREE FARTHINGS. INSURANCE COMPANY'S SUIT. (P.A.) _ . WELLINGTON, May , 21. Three farthjngs damages on a claim totalling ,€I7OO were awarded by the jury which heard a suit for libel and slander brought by the Dominion Life Assurance Office of New Zealand, Ltd.; against the Australian Mutual Provident- Society in the Supreme Court. The hearing began on Monday morning, and concluded this afternoon when the jury was one hour and 40 minutes considering its verdict. Of the five original causes of action, withheld from the jury. They found for the plaintiff company on each of the remaining causes, and fixed damages at £-d in each case. The foreman of the jury explained that they had decided to award only £d damages because they thought that the executive of defendant corporation had taken adequate and effective action to make amends for what its agents had done. They intended their verdict to be a moral victory for the plaintiff company ; but thought that the company should have been satisfied with the apology that was made, and the offer of payment of the plaintiff company’s legal costs. The Court made no order as to costs.

The plaintiff company alleged that late in April, 1940, or early in May, 1940, the defendant, by its agents, George Vincent Anderson and George lan Maxwell Porter, wrote and published to three Taranaki farmers a statement reflecting on the plaintiff's financial position, and also spoke and published to them words damaging to the plaintiff’s reputation and business. The defence denied the publication, either written or spoken, of the statement and words complained of, and pleaded that, if they were used, they wore not capable of any defamatory meaning. A further defence was that expressions of regret and unqualified assurances that any reflections,on the plaintiff’s financial soundness would be without foundation had been written to the three farmers, and notices to the same effect had been published by the defendant in the two leading Taranaki newspapers. A cheque for €52 10s, representing plaintiff’s legal costs, had been sent to plaintiff’s solicitors, but had been returned. The defendant had withdrawn Porter’s agency appointment, which automatically concerned Anderson, also a sub-agent. The defendant therefore .pleaded that not only had its actions mitigated any damages, but the plaintiff had as a result suffered no damages whatever.