JOHNSTON v. "LYTTELTON TIMES." COMPANY.

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

JOHNSTON v. "LYTTELTON TIMES." COMPANY.

VERDICT FOR £10. Alexander Adair Johnston ened the "Lyttelton Times" Company for £1000 for alleged libel. The case was heard bofore a common jury, of which Mr George Campbell was chosen foreman. >] r Alpers appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Geo. Harper for , . tue defendant cwnpaaj*

The statement of claim set forth that plaintiff claimed £IGOO for libel alleged to bo contained in a letter written by a correspondent to the "Lyttelton Times," and published in that paper. Plaintiff was a Fellow of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, and as tho result of criticisms of the Animals' Home (conducted by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) he took ovor the management o f the institution. On July 23rd a letter signed "Veritas" was published in tho "Lyttelton Times," in which tho writer stated that dogs were destroyed at the Home by means of strychnine. Plaintiff said that the statement contained in the letter implied that he had wantonly and crueliy destroyed dogs, and was guilty of culpablo ignorance in the exercise of his professional duties. The statement of-defence stated that defendant company had offered to publish an apology and pay plaintiff's costs. The plaintiff, in evidence, stated that ho was one of tho only two Fellows of the' Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons in New Zealand. When in England he was veterinary surgeon to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and the Society's veterinary.referee in three courts in the London district. When ho came to NewZealand he filled a position in the Stock Department, and started practice in Christchurch in March last. He had had considerable experience in England of tho branch of veterinary surgery known as canine surgery. He had read tho interview, in the "Lyttelton Times," published when he took over the management of the Animals' Home, and also the letter, published on July 29th, signed by "Veritas." If witness had been convicted of an offence against the law—such as cruelty of the, character referred to in tho letter—his College would strike him off the register, and he would be unable to practise his profession in tho United Kingdom. H. P. Bridge, public accountant and president of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, stated that he had seen the letter signed "Veritas," and it was very largely made the subject of comment amongst members .of the executive, and he (witness) had seen Mr Johnston on the matter. To Mr Harper: Ho had written a letter to the "Lyttelton Times," which was published on August 4th. The letter was read. Tho writer stated that tho dogs had been destroyed by the latest and most humano methods. An editorial footnote to the letter stated that if the editor had known that the dogs had been killed under Mr Johnston's supervision, the paper would not have published the statements ot "Veritas." This closed the plaintiff's case. , Mr Alpers, in reply to Mr Harper, said that he did not admit that an apology had been offered. Mr Harper briefly opened, and said that ail apology had been--offered, but was refused. The publication of "Ve-ritasV letter was not done maliciously. Saniael Saxinders. editor of the "Lytteltou Times," produced the letter from the company's solicitor, offering to make ail apology, and tho reply from plaintiff's solicitor refusing to accept such apology. His (witness's) attention f was fir awn to tho letter from "Veritas" by the reference to it in Mr Bridge's letter. When "Veritas's" letter was inserted, witness had not the least knowledge that Mr Johnston was in charge of the Animals' Home. To Mr Alners: Ho did not recollect the article.published in the "Lyttelton Times" on July 23rd dealing with the reorganisation of the Animals' Home and its new management. This closed the case for tho defence. Mr Harper, in his address to the jury, drew attention to the fact that no special damage had been proved, and only general damages should bo awarded. His clients were the very last people in the world to suggest that plaintiff had not suffered some damage, and were quite willing , that some reparation should be made. *~ Mr Alpers admitted that tho circumstances did not call for vindictive or pmntivo damages. The publication of tho letter signed "Veritas" showed that there had been carelessness somewhere, in view of the fact that a few days previous to its publication there appeared a column and a half in the ''Lyttelton Times" describing the new management of the Animals' Home. After a retirement of fifty minutes the jury returned with a verdict for plaintiff for £10. Mt Alpers said that he would move for a new trial on the ground that the da-mages were too small. His Honour remarked that the amount of'damages was a matter entirely for ihe jury. Plaintiff had come to Court to have his character vindicated, and his cliaracter had been vindicated. Mr Alpers was of opinion, that his client had been unfortunate in his case following upon a case in which the same defendant company, had substantial damages awarded against it. At the bottom of the. jury's verdict was, he considered, the thought that the defendant company had been sufficiently punished. His Honour referred to the salient points of the case and informed counsel' that lie held out little liope of his application beins granted. Mr Alpers then moved for judgment, which was entered up accordingly.