LIBEL ACTION FAILS

Press, Volume LXXXII, Issue 24883, 24 May 1946, Page 3

LIBEL ACTION FAILS

DAMAGES CLAIMED FROM NEWSPAPER

REPORT OF COURT CASE (P.A.) GISBORNE, May 23. After a retirement of under 20 minutes the jury returned a verdict for the defendant in a Supreme Court action in which Julian Ravline Bertie Hansen, described as a pruning expert, claimed £2OOO damages ftom Percy Rutherford Muir, publisher of the Gisborne “Herald,” for alleged libel. The plaintiff conducted his own ;ase, and alleged that publication of a report of proceedings taken against hjm by the Social Security Department in 1942, for non-payment of levy instalments, constituted libel. He also alleged that he was the victim of a series of actions which constituted a conspiracy to damage his reputation. He admitted, in evidence, that he was not in Court when the proceedings were taken, and the defence produced evidence that the report complained of was a substantially accurate record of the proceedings. Mr Justice Johnston pointed out to the jury that the plaintiff was under some disability in presenting his own case, but the Court’s assistance could not extend to supplying gaps in the evidence which the plaintiff did not supply himself. Assuming, however, that the article complained of had been published, • the' jury must decide whether it was a true and accurate summary of the proceedings. Statute law gave protection to newspapers in reporting judicial proceedings, providing that the reports were substantially accurate and thoroughly fair. It was for the jury to decide whether the report in question was fair and accurate, as testified by the man who made the report and by reference to the records of the Court. “If the plaintiff is brooding over fancied wrongs, or possibly over mistakes of departmental officers, they are the people from whom he should seek satisfaction.” said his Honour, “not from those who faithfully report the proceedings. There is no otyigation on the jury to see the facts and circumstances in the distorted view which you may feel the plaintiff adopts.” Judgment was entered for the defendant with COSeS.