COURT OF APPEAL.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 645, 23 October 1909, Page 14

COURT OF APPEAL.

CHIUSTCHURCH LIBEL ACTION.; , The>libel action, Stringer v. Norton,'came ' under,the notice of tie Court of Appeal yestcrdayr four judges being on tho bench In May last, before Mr Justice Denniston,'at Chnstchuroh, Thomas Walter Stringer, KC; Crown' prosecutor at Chnstchurch, sued John Norton' for X2OOO damages for alleged libel published in the newspaper " Truth," on March H, 1908 Plaintiff alleged that tho article in question meant that he had been party or pnvy to the payment of J&100 for the purpose of suppressing the prosecution of Fiancis Jlonry Bruges, and of defeating tho'ends of justicst" A common jury 'of twelve gave a l-verdrot in plaintiffs favour for tho full amount -. ,of damages claimed, and costs were allowed (amounting; to £59 18s. On August 30 last, defendant .appeared in person in support of 'his motion for a new trial, but Mr Justice JJenmston refused to grant the application An appeal from this decision was ,now brought^ Mr/A,'Dunn appeared for appellant, Norton, and Mr'C V Skorrett, KC., 1 and Mr AT. i ' Wright, for respondent The appeal was based on the grounds that (1) damages wero excessive, (2) comisel for tho plaintiff (Mr Skorrett), in addressing tho j*iry, had'referred to the oharacter of the paper, in a disparaging manner, although no evidence ,bad bean called or coild have been called as' "to its character, and had thns inflamed tho jury mto'givmg punitive damages, (3) that tho judge had misdirected the jury m not defining what a libel was, and in directing, them that it was a question whother a libel wis intended or notT" ' - ~ . '{ ' ,' i .Argument for the appellant badxnot con--1 eluded when the Court adjourned. * i