LIBEL ALLEGED.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIX, Issue 67, 21 March 1938, Page 8

LIBEL ALLEGED.

£10,000 CLAIMED. NEWSPAPERS SUED. ACCURACY OF COURT REPORT. Arising out of a case heard io the Supreme Court in November, a claim was made in the Court to-day, before hie Honor Mr. Justice Fair, by James W. Taylor for £.3000 as damages for alleged libel against New Zealand Xewspapers Limited and Wileon and Horton Ltd., respectively. Mr. E. Hall Skelton represented the plaintiff. Mr. A. H. Johnstoiie, K.C., with him Mr. C. P. Towle, appeared for New Zealand Newspapers, Limited, and Mr. H. P. Richmond for Wilson and Horton, Limited. Byagreement the claims against the two defendant companies were heard as one action. The Cause of Action. In opening the case, Mr. Hall Skelton stated that plaintiff was an insurance adjuster, and in November laet he was a witness in a caee Johneon v. Davis. Two reports of the case were published, one m the "Herald," published by Wilson and Horto.i Ltd., and one in* the "Star," published by New Zealand Newspapers Ltd. The jury would have to decide whether certain words in a para«raph in the reports were defamatory, or whether they represented a fair and accurate report of the case. The jury would have the judge's notee before them, as well as the two reports, and would have to eay whether there was an omiesion which entirely altered the complemon of the report, and whether certain words in the report in such circum stances were defamatory. Prejudice Alleged, ~ Th^ re wo uM also be brought before the Court a number of reports in other casee in which plaintiff was interested and the newspaper reports thereon to show evidence of malice in the reports. Counsel stressed the point that plaintiff was an insurance adjuster, who had an office and for three years or so had acted m the interests of persone injured in accidents, and against the interests of adjusters employed by insurance companies and against the insurance companies. Counsel was proceeding to put before the jury the aspect that the defendant companies were large holders of insurance company shares, when Mr. Johnstone objected that this was irrelevant to the issue before the Court. After argument in cham'bers hie . Honor ruled that references in the address at thie stage to the defendant companies' insurance interests must be general. Basis of the Claim. Proceeding with the claims against the " Star," counsel elated that in November an action was heard in this Court in which the plaintiff was a man named Johnson, who had been injured in an accident, and for whom the present plaintiff (James W. Taylor) acted as adjuster. Under black headings a report of the case appeared in the "Auckland Star" and immediately below a black sub-heading "Received £95" were the words: "In answer to questions Johnson said that in May, 1935, hie right hand had been injured and he had received £95. James W. Taylor had represented him in that action and he didn't know that the cheque paid to Taylor was for £144 18/. The amount of the settlement agreed upon might have been £95 or close on £100."

Those were the words which the present plaintiff claimed to be libellous, in that they did not represent a full report of Johnson's evidence. The report stated that Johnson did not receive more than £95 from Taylor. Actually Johnson, in cross-examination by Mr. Goldstine, admitted that a receipt for £144 18/ handed to him had been, signed by him as having received that sum from Taylor. The judge's notas showed that Johnson in cross-examination acknowledged si"-nin<* a receipt for £144 18/, adding that he would not say that all he received was £95, that what he signed for he received. The omission of the explanatory cross-examination left Taylor in the unfortunate position in the public eye of having appeared to have received more than £95 cm Johnson's behajf and to lmvfr-pjrkl only £95 to Johnson. He, therefore claimed that the words of the report were defamatory and not a fair and accurate report. Legal Aipecti of Cue. Counsel addressed the jury at considerable length on the legal aspects of fair and accurate reporting, and he elaborated the implications of the report that Johnson had received only £95, to the detriment of Taylors public reputation. Counsel stated that another alleged libel by the same defendant was the publication of part of Johnson's evidence reflecting on Taylor's negotiations on his behalf, without giving later evidence which justified Taylor's competence as an insurance adjuster. Counsel commented on the use of the terms "man called Taylor" and "a Mr. Taylor" in the newspaper reports as indicating feeling against plaintiff. The case is proceeding.