ALLEGED LIBEL.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 518, 27 May 1909, Page 6

ALLEGED LIBEL.

— » : — A FARTHING DAMAGES. (BI TEIEUIUI'II-niESS ASSuniJTION.) Chrlstchurch, May 20. The libel case of Huston Curlett, of Ohristchurch. moneylender, against the "Lyttelton 'limeE" Company, claim for £501 damages, was heard at the Supreme Court to-day before Mr. Justice Denniston and a common jury of twelve. . . ' _ Tho statement of claim sot out that plaintiff was a rcgistored moneylender carrying on business in Ohristchurch, and that on March 5, 1909. tho dofendant company, in the issue of tho "Star" of that date, published an article headed "Shylock," which made it appear that plaintiff had acted in a grossly unjust, arbitrary, unscrupulous, and improper manner in his transaction particular case referred to, and in tho general conduct of his business as a monoyleuder, and that he was an undesirable person for borrowers to do business with, and that he was in the habit of bleeding his fellows. In consequence of tho said article, plaintiff had been greatly injured in his reputation and in his business, and had been Drought into public odium, ridicule, and contempt. The publication was .false and malicious, and plaintiff prayed judgment for £501.' For the defence it was admitted that the words set out -in tho statement of claim had been.printed and. published as a leading article in the "Star. It was contended that the words did not mean what plaintiff alleged, they meant, that they were incapable of that or any defamatory meaning, and that they were no libel. It was further stated that on March 4, 1909, an action was brought in the Ohristchurch Magistrate's Court, in which Samuel Fullerton Tait was plaintiff and the present plaintiff was defendant, for the recovery of an advance by the present plaintiff to S. F. Tait under certain chattel security or/bill of sale, and a full report of the said action appeared in the "Star" of March 5. The articlo complained of, it was contended, was published by the defendant company in tho ordinary course of its business as public journalists and without any malice towards plaintiff, and that it was fair and bona fide comment on tho said action and the evidence given thereon, which wero then matters of public interest in Ohristchurch and "neighbourhood. His Honour, in summing up, said that tho comment had been based on facts which were riot trub, and therefore the comment was unjustifiable,'and tho jury should find a verdict for plaintiff with reasonable damages. .... A verdict was returned for plaintiff, with one farthing damages. Tho question of costs was held over till to-morrow. In tho courso of summing up tho Judge laid it down that when a newspaper com- . mented on facts, it took the risK of those facts being untruo, and comment on untrue facts could not bo justified as fair comment.