LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 221, 11 June 1908, Page 4

LAW REPORTS.

SUPREME COURT. CIVIL SITTINGS. ' LIBEL ACTION. EDITOR OF "DOMINION" v. THE "NEW ZEALAND TIMES" CO., LTD. SETTLEMENT OF THE ACTION. PLAINTIFF AND HIS STAFF . • VINDICATED. The action between Charles .Westwood Earlo, Editor of Tjie Dominion, and tho "New Zealand Times" Company, Limited —a claim for £501-damages for alleged libel — was disposed of in tho,Supremo Court before Mr. Justice Chapman yesterday. ■Sir. Slcerrett, K.C. (with him Sir.! Slyers), appeared on behalf of tho plaintiff, and the Attorney-General, Dr. Findlay, K.C. (with liini Sir. Eeere), for the. dofendaut. Company. . , . , : . ■STATESIENT OF-CLAIM. ' ;The plaintiff, by his statement 'of claim," set forth as follows-:— _ ... ; , , 'I.'Tho plaintiff is a journalist,' and is'ihb editor of a newspaper published at. Wellington, and circulating there'and elsewhere 'in New Zealand, known as The Dominion. 2. Tho defendant Company is l tho" proprietor and publisher of a newspaper published at Wellington, circulating there and elsewhere in New Zealand, and known as "The N'ew Zealand Times." , 3. In tho issuo of The Dominion published on April 24. 1908, tho plaifttiff, as such editor, as aforesaid, caused to bo publisheda certain notice of a spccial extraordinary meeting of members of the Tramways Union, which was to bo hold on. Good Friday morning. The plaintiff craves leave at' the trial of this action to refer to the test of the said , notico. ■ On April 25 ; 1908, the defendant Company published in the issue of their said newspaper, ; "The New Zealand Times," of and-concerning the plaintiff , tho ,following, words: ''I (a) "It, (meaning The Dominion) .; has . been-caught clambering into the'Thorndon Tramway offices, and carrying off a circular from a glass-case." • ! (b) "Notices of the meeting (mean- - •ing the meeting referred to in the, notice mentioned in the previous paragraph hereof) wero posted in the tramway sheds even at Thorndoni They were thero on ~ Good Friday, aud they wero allowed to • . retnain( there until Wednesday last, when an enterprising reporter (meaning . one of the reporters on tho staff of The Dominion), five days behind the fair, secured one, am}' dashed with it to his , editor (meaning tho plaintiff), who published it as a coup.!' ', (c) "'All's fair in'love and war.' , • • The first thing I (meaning onb, W. T. Young; secretary of tho Wei- -' lington ,Tramway Employees' Union) knew of Tiie Dominion coming into pos-.; session of a document tho property of: tlio Union—which they published in their ' Friday's issue—was when I (meaning tho said W. T. Young) picked up the paper , ill the morning. There I (meaning the said 'W. T. Young) found a verbatim copy of a-notico which had'been placed in a case —which was also the property 'of- tho Union—in the pay-in-shed at . Thorndon! On' reaching my offico I (meaning' tho said W. T. Young) wrote and informod The . Dominion .that if tho ' document was not returned to tlio place from whence it, had been taken by noon

- to-day, the matter would bo placed in ... ',tliO', hands of our solicitor (meaning- .tho. solicitor of the aforesaid Union) to pro- ■; them." v , <i Tho dofendant- Company, meant thereby that tho reporters 011 tho staff 'of The Dominion newspaper who were subject to>tho oontrol and orders 6f the plaintiff, or 'that oiio .of such .reporters, had either committed tlie' : thcft of or had qtlierwiso improperly removed from, the .place' where it was'kopt.tho notico' hereinbefore referred to, and that the plaintiff as editor of the said newspaper had published, or caused to be published, tho - said notico' with knowledge 1 that tho 'same, had been ,:so stolen • or- improperly-, removed,, and that tho plaintiff : Was thereby-guilty of an improper or dishonourable practice as a journalist. 6. Tho said publications were and each and evory of them was false and malicious. .Wherefore tlie plaintiff claims to recover frbm tho defendant Company the sum of £501 damages. : - ■ STATEMENT OP DEFENCE. The defendant Company by its statement of defence set forth as'follows :-r v ' _ 1. It'admits that there is' a newspaper published in Wellington,, and circuiat-ed elsewhere in Now Zealand, known as The Dominion, but- does' not know and therefore denies that the - plaintiff --is the editor of such paper. . : 2. It admits the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of-the plaintiff's statement of .claim. .i... . -..j 3. It denies "tho allegation "contained in paragraph 3 of the statement' of claim. 4. It admits that it. published on April 25, 1908, tho words set out in paragraph 4 of tho statement of claim, but says that tho said words in sub-paragraphs -(a), ,(b), and (c) of thei said paragraph '4 iiayo. been divorced from their'context,, and without such con- . text the true intent and->mcaning of tho said words aro not shown " or' expressed in the said paragraph 4, and tho defendant will ask that the said words be read with thoir context. 5.' The defendant denios that the said words published by it on April 25, 1908, have the meaning alleged in' paragr'a'ph 5 of the' statement of claim, and further says -that tho said words do not in any .-way relate to the plaintiff or his conduct as a journalist,, and that t-he .said words.have no defamatory meaning. ; 6. The said words were published, as part of tho controversy which was carried on in tho oolumns of defendants nowspaper, and also in tho columns of the said Dominion '. newspaper, during the last election of Mayor for the City of Wellington, and were published without malice. . ' ' - '

NO REFLECTION INTENDED. When the case was called on, Dr. Findlay said :—r I desire to say here and now that the defendant Company admits from information it lias received that 'tho notice referred to. in the pleadings, was quite ipropcrly- obtained' by the plaintiff, and, , 'moreover, I desire to' say. oil behalf of the defendant Company, that whatever construction the words objected to ■ arc capablo of thoy. were riot intended, to icast any reflection, upon ,tho -conduct of :the plaintiff, 'either in "liis editojrial. capacity or otherwise, or on any member of . his staff ' Mr. Skerrett then said:— ' Your-Honour, Mr. Earlo feols that-ho • ought to accept what has just been said •by my learned friend, ■ Dr. Findlay, on ibehalf of his clients, • and, therefore, ho ' is not proceeding with the action. His Honour : Then all I lia.ro , ; to do is to striko it out'of the list. j Mr. Skerrett: If your Honour'pleases. j HUTT PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS. CLAIM FOR £2291. VERDICT FOR PLAINTIFF. Tho hearing of tho action between John Motley Leigh, of Lower Hutt; settler (plaintiff), and William Thoinas Strand, ,of Lower Hutt, timber merchant (defendant) —in a claim for £2294, moneys alleged to have been obtained by fraud—was concluded yesterday before Mr. Justice' Chapman and a jury of twelve, of whom Mr. G. H. Munt was tho foreman. •Mr. Skerrett, K.C., (with him Mr. Becre), appeared'on behalf of the plaintiff,, and Mr. Ilcll, K.C. (with hi'm ■ Mr.: Treadwell), for defendant*

As the caso occupied six days, tlio facts are fairly well known. Plaintiff claimed that defendant acted as his agent .in connection with the purchase of' two adjacent properties at Lower Hntt. It was alleged that defendant in reality bought the properties himself for £2960, and sold thorn to 'plaintiff for £4624. • In addition, defendant received as commission £630, to which sum ho was not entitled by reason of'the allcgod fraud. .lor tlio' defence, it was contended that plaintiff know that' tlio defendant had become'.tlio owner of the lands. • The sum of £630 was, defendant continued, paid to him in respect of a claim for employment in connection with the roadirig, drainage, and subdivision or land'at Nai Nai belonging to tlio plaintiff, and of the land in question. . Tlio addresses of counsel wero fairly lengthy, Mr. Bell's spcecli' occupying 2J hours, and that of Mr. Skerrett two hours. His Honour,, in summing up> snid that tlio main issuo was whether defendant purchased the properties in question as tlio agent for plaintiff. Tho fact that a.man purchased cine day and sold again tlio next day at a profit of from 30 to 40 per cent, was, he remarked,. not so unusual an occurrence that it should create surprise in. the mind of anyone. If. tho jury had any'doubt as to which way their verdict ought to go, they should remember that the onus of establishing that tlio moneys had. heon • wrongfully:,obtained rested on the plaintiff. Tho question which he would submit to the jury was: Did.the defendant, when he.purchased the properties from the several vendors, make the purchases on his own account or as agent for . tho plaintiff. , ' The jury,, "who retired at 5:30, returned at '7.50 with the following verdict: lho defendant acted as agent only. The Foreman: I' must, on behalf, of the ■jury, thank your Honour for tho courtesy which you have extended to us. • His Honour: .I am quite sure you hava paid this case-all the attention that it deserved. I cannot ..help observing that you ■have throughout :given marked attention to all tho details. „ Mr.-! Skerrett: AY ill your Honour reserve tho matter for further consideration? lour Honour will see that there may be some question as to.tlie quantum (i.e.,,amount to which plaintiff is entitled, to recover), which it was agreed should be, left to your Hon°Ufi.is Honour: Is thbre anything further to bo said as to that. Mr. Boll: I agree. ■ , 1S _ . . Mr. Skerrett (to Mr. Bell): I think we can settle tho mattor in a very , short tiijio. Will my, learned friend agree to reservo all questions of. costs ? ' Mr.-Bell:. Yes. Mr. Skerrett: Thoro-may, for instance, possibly, be some question as to. tlio £630 paid by plaintiff to defendant. Mr. .Bell: I quite appreciate that. His Honour: Ono can see this: that Mr. Bell's instructions woro to defend out-and-'out on tho question of agency. If he had not been so instructed lie might liavo filed a countor-claim or somothing suggesting that an account was '•necessary'.' : Mr. Skerrett: I am suggesting that defendant's rights should ho conserved. Wo would like if your Honour could give us an appointment, for' some morning before your Honour'leaves for Blenheim. 'Mr. Bell: Will your Honour grant an extension :of timo in caso I desire to move for a now. trial. I should like the period fixed at 11 days. Mr. Skerrett: I agree, but wo can get the other questions settled in the. meantime..' His: Honour, who granted tho 'extension asked for, intimated also that ho would :arraiigo a date for tho settlement of, tho. mattors in question.