£25 DAMAGES.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 19972, 5 July 1930, Page 9

£25 DAMAGES.

-—♦' ' :■ ACTION FOR LIBEL; A NEWSPAPER PARAGRAPH. A paragraph published in a column under. the heading of ' Sunspots'' wai the basis of a libel actitiu in the Magistrate 'a Court yesterday, when Jeaa Cunningham, a married woman, claimed £IOO damages from the Sun Newspapers, Ltd. Mr JT, B. Cuningham appeared for the plaintiff, and ifr'J". D. Hutchison for the defendant company. • Mr Cuningham said that the plaintiff' s . , was a member of the Girls' Club , at'* . ■ St; John's Church, Woolston, that fier maiden name was Chick, and that ou the evening of Thursday, April 10th, the members of: the Club had iheld a party ,in her honour in view of her approaching marriage. Tho evening had taken the form of. a "china"- ©veniiig, in that all thepresents werfof'china. She had sought no publicity £os < the affair, but some friefad had fc'cnt.a report in to the papers, and-a Toport only appeared ih the"Stui" on Mondaj,-April 14th. On that day she had seen the report, occasion to "be dis* pleased with.it.'On "turning to the"centre ;.. ; page-: of the paper 'and looking l , column of "Sunspots," which •» : column containing alleged:humow^. she was astonished to 'read.the., complained of. In.it her name agpeaped i as "Cluck," and there, was mention o£ Easter Eggs.' Thereport had been f , turned into a' vqry coarse,.offensive, and vulgar paragraph, which ridiculed her name, her ' parents, and her ttgxri&gc. ( The paragraph -had been read-by • large, number; of people, many of. whom were disgusted with it, while ..others iad ..laughed, and pho .wan, gpnefsilly ; caused much -discomfort, much tho pleasure being-taken, out pf her., ,'ap- , proaching marriage. Beneath the, words » as they stood, saidrMr Cuninghpn,,was . a very nasty and vulgar .innuendo. , J Jean Cunningham said .that when ,ehe had read the paragraph in questip? she had been dunibfounded .■ iwrd abaolately _s|iocked by it. She had been, much up- . t set and had wept over thp matter. Mr .Hutchison:; Don't you agree, .with the company that in apology 'or further reference to the matter would not help f i People did not think any the less you because of the'paragraph, —They spoke to me on all sides, and *1" felt -cH hurt, o.vjsr tho 'whole business. 4 ~ ' Mr Hutchison: Hero is a copy pf Th» - v -.>. Press for the game day, containing ft rll report of the social evening. 3js there in it anything that you might object tof » —Yes,, my name appears as Cluelf, ,but ' ' that is* only a.misprint.' _ ■-/ Mr Hutchison: What you object ttt is the name in the "Sunspot"?—» IToj-I object to the, .whole paragraph. Mr; Hutchison: Don't you see, Mrs Cunningham,..that-Ahere was no wish to harm you, but just tho natural association of tho words?— The "Star" dopsn't do it, and Ttos Phbss dpesn'i make jotes like that. William Brock, retired .inspector of ■ schools, and E: Bell, librarian, gayo evidence concerning the meaning of the paragraph. v v - Mr Hutchison-said that there -had , been no intention of attacking the lijune of the plaintiff. The paragraph in- his opinion had not been in the "best of taste, but that did not make any difference. The point that had arisen' from the correspondence was that though.the company thought that no good could be - done by further reference to' the matter, it had been ■Willing -to publish . an apology, and resetted the distress that had been caused'the plaintiff. He submitted that the publication of _ the paragraph would not lower the-plaintiff in the opinion i of. othera, No ordinary ■man would .see in. the; paragraph anything more thaii a,harmless joke.. The Magistrate ruled that the paragraph was defamatory, and gave judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of & 2a and costs.'