CIVIL SITTINGS.

Press, Volume XLIX, Issue 14760, 2 September 1913, Page 2

CIVIL SITTINGS.

(Before his Honour, Mr Justice Denniston.) NEWELL v. "LYTTELTON TIMES" COMPANY. £300 DAMAGES AWARDED. The libel action John Alexander Newell versus the "Lyttelton Times" Company was heard before a common jury of twelve, of which Mr N. J"Keane was foreman. For the plaintiff Mr Beswick, with him Mr G reason, appeared; and for the defendant company Mr George Harper appeared. J Mr Gresson, in opening, stated that tho plaintiff was a medical practitioner residing at Lyttelton, where he had been in practico for tho past nine years, during eight of which ho had been surgeon to tho gaol.. It was in that capacity that plaintiff had been libelled in the newspaper, the "Star," published by the defendant company, in the issue of May 17th last. It was now admitted by tho defendant company that every libellous word in the article was untrue. Counsel then read the libel complained of, which was part of an article entitled, "Tho Gaol {System. The Experiences of a Victim. A Sen- ; ous indictment." Under the heading "Health" tho writer of the article stated: —"The question of medical aid naturally follows food, and now we come to what is a disgraceful scandal. Tho writer went on to allego that a prisoner who was ill received no attention at the gaol, and was removed to tho Christchurch Hospital, where ho died. Tho writer also alleged that certain regulations affecting tho health of prisoners in Lyttelton gaol were not observed. Counsel contended that the allegations in tho articlo were malicious falsehoods. The defence was, counsel continued, that the defendant company by its solicitors wrote on June 24th offering to make aft apology, such apology to be approved by plaintiff, and to pay £100 and such costs as plaintiff might have incurred up to the timo tho defendant Company made j its offer. Counsel commented on tho fact that tho apology was "a stale apology five weeks old ; and added that an apology to bo any good must be made immediately. The plaintiff claimed £1000, and defendants offered £100, but tho question of theamount of the damages was one entirely for the jury. . No witnesses were called for tn© plaintiff. Frank Eugeno Hyman, called by Mr Harper, stated that he was manager of tho "Lyttelton Times" Company. Hβ produced certain correspondence in connection with the proceedings. To Mr Beswick: No apology had been inserted in any of tho newspapers published by the Company; an apology had been refused by plaintiff. Witness produced tho original manuscript of tho article, and stated that probably the pencil marks were mad© by a momber of the editorial staff. • No other witnesses were called. Mr Harper, addressing tho jury, said that, unfortunately, tho libel connected with Dr. Newell got into tho "Star" of May 17th. The writer was Reg. Williams, who was, counsel believed, a "Passive Resistor." and had been incarcorated for a brief period in Lyttelton Gaol. Regarding the question of damages, counsel referred to tho provisions in the law permitting the defendant Company to offer a public apology, and to advance, in mitigation of damages, the fact that - such apology had been offered. He asked the jury to consider what damages plaintiff was entitled to; and he thought they would come to, the conclusion that those damages should not be vindictive. Mr Beswick said that the. effect of libelling the plaintiff in his official capacity was to injure him, not only in that capacity, but also as a private, practitioner. The injury to plaintiff's reputation would have been serious, "but would ' Lave been small ' compared to the enormous " loss ,ho would suffer by being stiown up as the person guilty of such atrocities as those mentioned' in the articlo. In publishing the article, the "Star" had made a very serious lapse. His learned friend said that the article "got" into the ; "Star," but things did not "get" into nowspapers in the saino sense that a man's fowls got into his neighbour's garden. The article had been written to order and paid for, and they would see from tho manuscript that the libel had been whittled down in some places. Replying to his Honour, Mr Beswick said that he mentioned this phase of the matter to show that tho article had not "got" into tho newspaper. V Referring to the apology offered by the defendant Company, counsel said that the whole object of an apology was that it should bo immediate. His Honour, in summing up, said tiiat tho case was certainly unique in his experience. As it was before the j 'jury -it was simply a question of dam- I fages. Contemptuous or nominal damages were out of the question, and tho jury had to consider whether they should award substantial or vindictive damages. He drew tho jury's attention to the fact that plaintiff's name was I not mentioned in tho article, and that whilst that might not injure him in tho eyes of readers not acquainted with the district, in 'this district where plaintiff is known his , name might' just j as woll have been published. The jury were called upon to decide the actual damages, and they might aJso consider punitory damages. These last men- j tioned might, bo looked at from several | points of view, as. for instance, that the effect of punishing the newspaper j would be to put an extra amount into the pockets of tho plaintiff. As to the question of apology, his Honour remarked that if a newspaper discovered that it had been betrayed—perhaps by carelessness —assuming .. carelessness— into publishing an improper and libellous writing, it would bo bettor, if it realised that fact, to frankly and immediately publish an apology. It was no discredit, even to a newspaper, -to find itself in tho wrong; and it was no discredit for a newspaper to act, as gentlemen do, and frankly and at tho earliest moment, express regret and withdraw the matter complained of. There was little grace in an apology tendered in the manner defendant Company had tendered plaintiff a<n apology. Though newspapers had no privilege, in the ordinary sense of the word, no mbro than ordinary individuals, juries were in the habit of taking into consideration tho fact that newspapers exist largely to ventilate grievances, and for the discussion of public matters; so that much could be said in a newspaper on these ' matters, which would be viewed differently and. more leniently than if said by a person* in his private capacity. But in introducing this class* of matter into their columns, • newspapers : ought to exercise care. There was no suggestion* of personal malice ia the present case; the suggestion was that these experiences of Mr Reg. Williams were, probably considered as likely to make good "copy." . The jury, after half an hours r<vtiroment. returned with a verdict for plaintiff for £300. Judgment was entered up for that amount with costs -as per scale. His Honour did not consider the case was one in which ho should grant second counsel's fee. "I suppose, , ' his Honour remarked, "it is abo Tit the shortest and simplest libel action in my experience."