VERDICT FOR PLAINTIFF.

Press, Volume L, Issue 15017, 11 July 1914, Page 3

VERDICT FOR PLAINTIFF.

£850 DAMAGES GIVEN. • Tho jury retired at 12.31 p.m. to consider the issues placed before it, and returned at 2.10 n.m. with the questions answered as follows:— I. Docs the aTticlo of October loth, 1912, charge tho members of tho Cost of Living Commission, or any of them, with having dishonestly suppressed part of tho evidence of the witnesses Bowyer and Jamieson, in the official report of tiuch evidence? —Yes. 2 If so, is that charge true?— No. 3 Is the said article a li-el on tho plaintiff?— Yes. 4. I>oos the letter signed "Win. R. Gordon," accuso tho plaintiff ot liaving accepted tho office of Commissioner for some improper purpose ?—Yes. 5 If so, is that accusation true? —No. 6. Is the said letter a libel on the plaintiff?— Yes. . 7. Does the letter signed "Merchant" allege that the plaintiff was appointed a Commissioner on account of the business relations between himself and the Honourable Thomas Mackenzie?— Yes. 8 Was the plaintiff appointed a Commissioner for that reason.— No. , 9. Is the s?aid letter a libel on the plaintiff?— Yes. 10. Does tho letter signed "L.R.W." allego that tho whole of the said Commission was appointed for tho purpose of enabling the plaintiff to attack his business competitors, and to further tho interests of his own firm?—lea. 11. Was tho said Commission appointed for that purpose?— No. __. Is the r-aid letter a libel on the plaintiff?— Yes. 13 What- damages, if any, is tho plaintiff entitled to recover from tho defendant in respect of: (a) His first cause of action: (b) his seconc. can.se of action : (O his third cause of action; (d) his fourth cause ot action ?~(a) £250; &)&*>'> < c ' ilOO; (d) £2_o—total, £8-0. Judgment was entered accordingly, and costs according V> wsalo were allowed.