LIBEL ACTION.

Auckland Star, Volume XLV, Issue 163, 10 July 1914, Page 3

LIBEL ACTION.

COST OF LIVING COMMISSION. (Bj- Telegraph. —Tress Association.) fIIRI?TC*HI"KCIT, Thursday. The libel action in which Andrew Fairbairn is claiming £1.000 from the "Otngo Daily Times" in reference to an article published under the heading.' of ""Faked Official Documents," upon the Cost of Living Commission, was continued at the Supreme Court to-day, before Mr. Justice Sim. For the defendant company it w.is represented that the article v.-ns published I Ttitkut maliop and in ?ood faith, and j upon a privileged occasion. When the j srtiolr tta;- puhliMied r. letter came to Ihp ''Otapo Daily Time?' , from Fairbairn'.s solicitor?. It was assumed that tbp article was aimer] at Fairbairn. No suggestion of withdrnwn-I or TVHS made. Tlie solicitors simply said that they were going to Mie for libel. -After the first letter, nothing was heard for ?ix months, wln-n the writ was issued without further notice. ]n tJiat interval all documents in newspaper offices had. ] Wn Hcntroyed. and Mr finrdnn. chnir-l man nf the" Mcrcvh.ilit.* - Awociatinn. hod | jone to Enpland. Thou proceedings were taken, and that wan why there was so much difficulty now in n.siv.rtnininjr what wrr the real fact* about Bovrrcr's and Jnmieson's nvidencc ■Tames Hutclrn-on. editor of the '-Otaj.i Daily Time," said lie wrote the leading article complained of. He did not know Fairbairn: ie w;is absurd to suggest malice. Witness, in reply to Sir -lolm Findloy. said the discrepancies on which lie based his article was that in the ollicial report., a reference by P.owery to lleckitt's blue dirl not appear, and that Jamieson's supplementary report also was absurd. Sir -Tohn Kindlay. Did you make inquiry to see if this was due to a shorthand writer's error ir to deliberate suppression by the commission I— The question of deliberate suppression by the commission was riot in .my mind at all. ■■Then do you admit that there is no Marge against the Honour o r integrity of the commission?"—"No charjre agrainet their honour r- intcgrdty was ever intended." "Do you think such a charge would lie justified?"—-"No." CHRIST* lIURCH. this day. Thirteen times were submitted to tin , jury, and counsel ire now addressing t.ic Court. Mr Mcfiresor urged tluit plaintiff waguilty of impropriety in going on the commission, and l'nai he brought the libel on liimself by delaying an explanation in answer to letters appearing in the papery -ir .lohu I'iihli.iy s.ikl t.he editor admiUerl he could imr, justify (ho ohargw in reading the ar'Hcie. l>ut. counsel r"- ,- r*Me<l that the durpes ill the c;lsc H-nJ ine conduct of the ..,t?o :-iio-wed -1 Tiiotive of'bitternflsi, nnd insisted fhat plxintiu" »aB fifrhlinjr it-he. MerclianU' Awociatiou. and rrot a newnpaper. He adde<l thflt thr editorial was the rreult of party politics, ■Tiirlpe Sim. in siianminf: up. said irfc was dear -he e j li-torial t.bo Cotmoiusf i'm -.vith di.=hone.ct suppression, anj the Pfklence -how.-, j was ti»>t true. The inckiPi. f ,n r,f Mr. .Tamici?on in the seupplo-nii-nuiry natenieni would h.ive been imprnjtp.r. T'm,. i>ri*ci:rp r< ; Xr. Ta-irlnin. *T« ihniisli hr \uii hen nttickinp Mic MprehainU' A"-oc|.u:on.

H"nrv Driver, fniit preserver, nf Vl'l.e"sarei. ,has filed a petition to t'.ic adjndia b.inkrupt. William Tcmplcton fiil-mour. motorca -r pro])riotor. Iras lilt-J :. p.nition to bo piidicatcfl a l\n,<nipt. In his statemoiit •1 the Official Assignee dnbtor put* fl0 «n hw lia'.iili«ics at £2,218 1/D. The »WKs arfl B!) follow:—Steck-in-tratln '■our motor-«\r«». valued :H jEl.Oii. fcwkdsbt, ,£rj. wUumtrt Ifl proilnw *l^ 1 . fnrnitnre ,tJ4l>, forpr ** and lawn wo\vt>r il-1 1.5/ —tot.il - 122 ].-,/, whb'n icav-Of a dcflcien.n , l!