LIBEL CASE.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16219, 23 May 1918, Page 6

LIBEL CASE.

FOU.R NEWSPAPERS SUED. Mil I..UTHER HOPKINS AWAUDEE DAMAGES. IPUESS ASSOCIATION TF.IEUttASO WELLINGTON. May ±2. In the Supremo Court to-day, boron; li;n Hor.cnr Mr ust'.co F.chvards, an action was hoard in winch Liu hor Hopkins, sniifi tor. claimed £_000 from the proprietors ot o:K'h ot 1130 iollowinij; newspapers:— •"Evening Post," "Dominion," "New Zealand Time*;' (all of Wellington), ana t.io ".vow /calami Herald" ( Auc.tlnnd), i'or .illci'ed lib.-l contained iv. a telegram from Christchure'' dated November L'lJth last, to whieh the heading "solicitor .Siruck Off Ko!l." or similar words was prefixed. Mr A. \\ . Dljir and Mr L. C-. Lovvov appeared fnr tko plainti'F. ar.d Mr M. Mvors for all thi> defendants. 1 statement of claim sot. out that plaintiff was a solicitor practising in Christehuroh and Wellington, mid the wordr. "'struck off roll" meant that plaint• it" was unfit to carry on his ;<'a:tice or had heen guilty of ir.-.nrono.- <>r unprofessional conduct, and as A consequence plaintiff had ore;; :,ie;.t:v min his credit, profession, anil reputation. The statement of defence denied Knowledge that plaintiff was a praetissolicitor in Giristciunch a:id Wellington. hut admitted publication, which, l-.owover, was done without malice, that the words complained of were only a heading, and when road with the'rest r.f the telegram did not bear the meaninn; .alleged. Tho defence submitted Lliat a paragraph was published subsequently correcting the error, which inadvertently occurred. Tho plaintiff said ho was a barrister and solicitor, and had practised fr-om 1005 to 1914 at Christclrurch, after I'.'hich he severed his partnership with tho object of enlisting, but was not accepted . Ho had done some legal work, but had previously engaged in commercial business. Up till when he saw the telegram complained of published lie had no knowledge of the ChristLaw Society's action. Tliey had never served him with tho papers, and it came as a complete surprise. He lid not tako any steps about the telegram till the end of February last. He claimed its publication had crippled his business. In cross-examination witness said ho ivanted to clear his reputation, and also iamages. He did not ask the papers to correct tho statement after it had appeared, nor before he started proceedings. Questions were put to him. as to liovv much legal work ho had done sinco 1914, from which it appeared it was Oouvt work, and ,he could readily be said to he regularly practising. He ■:old out to his partner in Christeliurch or £400. An action was now pending igainst him and others in Christchureh "or £1700. Thomas William Schofield, manager in Wellington for A. M. Dun and Co., said he had known plaintiff slightly for six or seven years. When he saw the telegram in tho papers he at oiice thought some serious charge had been made against Hopkins and an action lad been commenced (not then concluded) to have him struck off the rolls. This closed the case for tho plaintiff. Mr Myers called Joseph Parker, editor of the "Evening Post," who explained how the error occurred. On February 28th he heard there had been nn error in this message, and had had inserted in the newspaper a correcting paragraph. It was an invariable rulo to make a correction if a mistake occurred. In his experience of 25 years this was the first time n newspaper had not bqen given an opportunity of correcting an unwitting mistako. Mr Myers said the paragraph iiad been published quite innocently, without thought of malice. In spite of what Hopkins made, it was clear tha£ be had not been practising his profession sinco 1914. and therefore had not suffered professionally. Plaintiff bad never asked for a retractation of tiie statement, although he had all the facts before they were known to the napers. He urged that it was a case tor Bmall damages. Mr Blair repudiated the suggestion that it was the duty of the person defamed to persuade a newspapeT to correct an error. He suggested that Jamages should he substantial.. He sid not consider that the Wellington [>apers had made such ample apology is should bavo been given Hopkins. His Honour said an incorrect statenent had heen published which wan lot privileged, and it would be the luty of the jury to award such damtges as. in theiT opinion, would bo easonable recompense for the amount jf damage done. The jury awarded £200, to be apportioned "among the four papers at GSO each. Judgment was entered for plaintiff iccordintrly with costs against each Jefendant on tho lowest scale up to tho ;tnge of the issue of the four writs, md for the Test as for one action for £200, the remainder of the costs to lie )orn<=» in equal shares among tho seve•al defendants.