ALLEGED LIBEL.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2017, 26 March 1914, Page 6

ALLEGED LIBEL.

"TIMES "*" DOMINION " CASE. JURY DISAGREE.

FRESH TRIAL TO BE HELD.

Tiie second trial of the libel action. taken by the "New 2ftaknd Times" Coi'npa-ny against the Wellington Publishing Company (proprietors of Tin: OoMiNios) was held before a common jury of twelve in the Supreme Court, Wellington, yesterday. The result-was (mother disagreement,, Tfie trial was commenced at 10.30 in the morning, pud the jury were dispatched to consider their verdirt at 5,24 in the afternoon. Shortly before 9.30 p.m. they returned and-the foreman announced that thero appeared to he no rhanco of agreement. Counsel, .for the "Times" Company asked that a new trial should bo ordered, and the Court consented.

The action of .the "Times". Company was takea respecting an article whfeh appeared in The Dominion of December •li. Hie plaintiff company contended that the article was pubiisiied (couoeni; ing the "Times" Company) falsely anc maliciously, .and that the meaning ei the article was thift the.. ''Times" on every possible occasion advocated the encouragement and support of the doctriijes of the United Federation oi Labour and its leaders, which Fedei'.i tion and leaders were described ill the plaint as being revolutionary and • being commonly reputed to be enconragcr! of seditious, anarchical, fioums, anc other dishonourable methods, It wa: alleged .that This Domini.on artio!.< thereby meant'that' the. "'Times*'-eii' eoiir.aged riot, lawlessness., and crime, and that 'consequently the policy of the "Times" was injurious to peace, order: and public safety, and. to the best in terests' of the community, especially oi tilosS currying on' business in .. -ant around Wellington. The "Times" Copipany alleged that it had thereby beei greatly injured in its business er«j}U and reputation and on these ground! . the plaintiffs claimed £3000 damages In the defence filed by the Welling ton Publishing Company there was denial that Tub Dominion article .wa; . published ill respect of the ''Times' Company in the way of . its business o: otherwise. It was further claimed fc; : the defendant company tljat the word; were not defamatory and not libellous and the allegation that the "Times' Company had been injured in its hiisi li»ss, credit, and reputation was de iiiecl. 11l further defeuip it. was sail ffiat the article dealt with", matters o public interest, and Was fair comment written in good. faith., and .wifbo# malice. ; .' • .y His Honour the" Chief Justice (Si: Robert Stout) was on tho Bench. Mr C. P. Skerrett, K.C., with him Sir Join Frod'lay,' K.C., and. Mr. 0. E, Stout appeared for the "Times" Company Mr. C. B. Morison, K.C., with him Mr "M. M;,crs and Mr. T. 0, A. Hislop np peared for the Wellington Publishing Company; • . The following composed tho jury •— •Walter iladdW,' • carpenter. (tee= man); Edward Barnard ITill, artist; James Sievcrs, upholsterer Edgar Prier, driver; James Lister ' few, cferk; James Arthur Elen, pastrycook; Batid Morr,is ; tobacconist: Albeit P.vfy clei 1: j John Henn Goitcs butcher Eduard Robert Ciarap, foreman.: Mortimer Reardcr llishon, electrician; and John.. Alfred Carter, labourer Lieli sido exercised tho.right of .challenging sis Jurors,, ; '

PLAINTIFF COMPANY'S CASE. 1 ; SIR JOHN FINDLAY OPKXS. ' Sir John Findlay opened the ease for tlio plaintiffs, lie said that an action for libel by one newspaper Against an-, athov fraa rare, l.iiit this did not imply that a newspaper had no character to i bo attacked. It was due |o the fact, that tho standards of British journalism were high. They were not there because Tab Dominion newspaper had criticised the opinion of the "New Z6fr* : laud Times." If tlio charges made by Tiiii Dominion were truei the "Times" . proprietary should cease to publish a newspaper at all, cease to have the. respect of any decent community and re-. tire and leave the field to Tub Domin- ; ion newspaper. They might be told that a newspaper bad its own columns 'm; wdiie'h to 4efend itself.- That line yrcnild liofc do. A, neWspapor was eiititled tfl vindication at the hands of a jury; They would bear in mind that a trading company conducting a lieivßpaper dcpeiicled iu great measure upon it s character. If its character wore sa attacked that its circulation wja re-! duced and atkertiaemciits we withdrawn, it would surely he monstrous if they had not a right to como to Court' for protection, vindication, aiid compensation. Ho went on to review the facts; of the case on the line's of his address at the original hearing. It was a case, he said, oi two rival journals competing for isfrculation' and advertisemeftts in «• limited field, JPlaintitf did not object to fair competition. Let Tuk Dominion tafia awav $ho circulation and advertisements of tlio "Times" it it could, but let it do it on fair lines. He submitted that the bitter rivalry between these' two papers supplied the motive for the libel cf which they complained. Thoro had been, .he contended, an attempt tp injure; the ".New Zealand Times" business, and not any fair and honest criticism of its views. Going on to refetf to the Strike of 191:3., and the part played 'therein by the. Federation vif Labour, his saKl that The Dominion .find given thie organisat ion a character for criminality, evefi far n)'U'rd'er ; ,. wWoh, if true., Would; justify the emplovnteixt of every supprossioixal nieaiis Icnowii to law, lit w-as not-the fault ot lm Dovlmmn' if its .every reader did not l.Qok with, dotestiitipn'aMl disgust mxm those wjio led and conducted the Red, .Federation. .He Was not Ikero t<> defend, ihe Fed* ©ration, but to, lm character attributed by Tnr. Dominion to that OTgailisatioii:, Tfere \V.aS..np doubt about' what Thk Dominion said about this organisation. It liad. imputed lawlessness, anarchy, sedition, and all the rest of it to the leaders of the Federation. Having <lone this, it had declared that its trade rival w«s tho ally of, and had given itself body and soul to, the Itad Iteration; iliat it Ivad leftfc lUfclf to tlio crimes which Tittf DasrjNiON threw upon this organisation. Having inflamed to readers against this organisation, it said that its, rival was allied to tlus criminal . Federation. _ Having done this, it- suggested that it would not do ihe "Xew Zealand Times' much goed .with the business sectian of the : community. Counsel contended _ that ! The Dominion had conducted art ms«n--*(ous attack designed, to deprive the '.'Now- Zealand Times" of its advertisements. The place of an editor r-uilty csf the charges ma#e by The Dosiixion should be gaol, ti'o went on to o.unte from boins'ioN leading articles in order to show tho nature of the character eharged by the paper against -Iteration of Labour. Metering j<> J alleged libel, Sir John Fmdlay saul that the article hi question mvbWwu ; a time when feeling *vns inflamed ami " nnininsj high, He read and con-nieiHerf . man the arfeK and remarked .bat : there was no dispute as to U.'.e fact that Tim DoMisifo* newspaper from tint© to ; time represented thodfelerotson isco*ntitted to anarchy, not. discredit, e car,duet, and nil the rest of it, Tn- ! ]).iMi:\i!is had directly declared t.lmt the "New feilaiid Times" encouraged tho maintenance of the Federation and its leaders 1 methods. Having dene tins, ittriunrohalitty asked: "What do the business peaplo"tlliflk about; this?"' What other effect would ho swiiitd than the jvitlidjawal ■ of a'ivettisawfitts P las.

Dominion article, ho submitted, was a shabby atteni.pt to ilijiwo a competitor, by playing on the passions oi the hour. This matter was vital to tho plaintiffs. They had to bring this action to .provethat the charge lard against theln Wis a li«. and that they had efou.O nothing of tho kind ascribed to theim "Whether th<\v got a shilling or a farthing, or what the jury liked, plaintiffs wore bound to come to Court.

fin Amended Defence. Since the -case was first, tried, the defendants bid filed an amended defence. At the previous tffel they pleaded fair comment., Ho was glad to know that ! tliev were now going to show that tlie. words complained et, in their ordinary natural signification, wefe true id Stfbstanee and in fact Finally, Sir John; Riidlay a'sked the jury to *memrm to political considerations. Plaiiitilrs were tlifro to defewd their busiiiet-s and. not their opinions. Amending tha Claim. Mr. 0. P. Skerrett put in two formal admissions by the defendants: that the. United Federation. of Labour W&s commonly known as tho Hod Federation,. and that the. words, "our morning contemporary" in il ic- iirticlo coini>taihtKi of, meant the "Now Zealand limes. •Ho amended the last paragraph m the Statement cif claim in two places, so that it reads; "The defendant company thereby meant that- the Xoif Zealand Times' newspaper, from lin-.o to timo (instead of "on overv possible, occasion' : '.) advocated tho encouragement and sup]>ort of the doctrines awl methods ("and methods" is an addition) of llio said 'T'niiod Federation of Labour." Points .Reserved. Mr. 0. a. Morison. before opening the caso lor.the defendants,_ asked His Honour to Tcse.rva two mints. 'fli6 first was: "That the- words complained of arc not published of and concerning , the plaintiff company, but of and cmi; corning tho journal,' tho 'Xew Zealand Tirives., " 1 His Honour: Is not that, lor tho jury? . " Mr. Morison said that it might go tb the.' jury, "but ivas a question for the Court even aftefveirdiet, His second point was r '"That- ; tbo'words. cojnpbi«cd i of cannot reasonably bear tho moaning alleged in tho imiueiidos and are not reasonably capable of any defamatory meaning." His Honour agreed to reserve. both | points. Mr. Morison put-in tho copies 6'f tlits , ''Now Zealand Times" put in at tho . last hearing. • Mr. Skerrctfc put in by way of rebuttal copies of ihtt "New Zealand ■ Times" from October 21 to December it), showing the attitude of tho paper ,' to the strike. '

iN DEFENCE, ME. MORISON ADDRESSES THE ■ JURY. Morison said that ho found it difficult- to treat this matter as a serioiu ■ action for libel. Notwithstanding tho rhetoric of Si-r John Findiay and his .attempt at seriousness, Mr. Morison could not avoid casting his mind back to an event of his childhood. This event was tho magnification : 0E :a dro,i of water. Tho "drop was magnified a like Sir John Find.: lav's points—and there, woro .all sorts ef tilings ■moviug about in it, performing all sorts Of contortions. '''Well, you know, 1 it is often said,' that it' is. theso sort of things which liavo driven many :,a man oft water on,to whistcy,.''': Tub Dominion's was -a. political article, written at tho time of tho. Lytiejtoh election. It was only 80 years since Dickons had written of' the quarrels between. t)jc ; Eatonsvill "Gazette" and. the Eaton.svill "Independent," and liow truly ho had written. It was the "Now Zealand Times" Company which took this-action, not the .editor, or the writer of tho article. One could not hurt tho feelings of a company; they could only hurt its pocket. The "Times" ■asserted that The Dominion's arti«:>' was calculated to injii.ro the ■"Timcs.'s"' business, but when interrogatory proceedings woro instituted, asking th« '"rimes" lo give particulars of tins,- tho ''Times'" nbantl.on'ed that assertion as a cause of: action. ' Tho cardinal fact, ' repeated, was that The Dominion's article was an election article, and lie 1 read tho "Times'" article of tho previous day to emphasise his point that that ■ "Times" article amounted to a challenge to Tub Dominion. When two nieii had a'-difference they did not (according to the. British rules of sport) co to the Court to settle- it; they decided it botwee.il themselves. Many differences arose out of the. strike, but to the credit of a British community the 'Court had Jiot-liceii asked to settle these differences, except iii this iiistaiico, wliicli Was the oniy civil' easo the Court had been asked to deal with. Jfo one would ever have thought anything much abouttho article in question had the "Times" ■not sued upon' it.During tho strike, ; the "Times" kept oil saying that unless: the striko was settled according to their view, ruin among small business men would ensue. The defendants said that Tin: Dominion article did not. 'constitute a libel Oil tho "%'mtfs" Company j The Dominion was writing of politics, with the object of securing tlio election of the Reform candidate at L.vttoltou. Supposing iono. man wr<jto a: book and .mother criticised it, tho former. would haro Ho right of action for libel against the fatter unless, tho attack was personal, as public publica-■' lions won- open to public criticism. As; Tiik Dominion article contained no ret* erenco to (he "Times" Company, lie directed the jury's attention to the point that the article was not directed at tho "Times'' Company (who sued), but at. the "Times! 1 a-s .a_ journal, Tiir Dominion at tide was ordinary poli-. Ileal criticism'of an ordinary political article. Coming to tbo part i>f the matter 'dealing with tho strike, Mi'. ; Morison said that all through the "Times" had taken a certain line. . ]ni.'st:,*.ttere Was the "Times" c.jSti.cism , of. tlio. a-ctiiiii. (if tlio authorities jit pro-; viding for .the prevention of violence. The course adopted by the authorities. ■ was to asseinblp hetc such a- torco that ■ bloodshed would become a remoto possibility. The l • , Tllß«s , '' attitude on . this point- was :in line with tlfe attitude of tho Federation of Labour, and that was oil©:o.f the sympathisers The Dominion article, referred to. There we're. I only two means of settlement —under ■ ; the Arbitration Act, or under ll«o Federation of Labour. Tho -"Times" wrote against settlement under the Act. . If anyone had read the : "Times" articles tli'Cv would have formed, the <-or.chis-.cn ; that tho "Times" was helping tlio Fedoration o.f Labour.

The Federation Came. Conliuuii'.K after tlio luncheon ad* ■ iournrient, Mr. Morison disclaimed auy intention of talking iwfities. The 'pes> tio.n of tfe Mnft of action followed by the iiovernment at the- tihio of tho strike, ]io said., was not before the- Court. It appeared, however, that the leaders of tho strike at that timo \vefo endeavouring to arouse- public opinion against the stnps takeii to preserve- order. They contended that tho presence of the special constables Was 1 mi incitement to riot, The m tides of tho "Times" were lrtie a pood sumlwieb spoiled -with lad moat. ' lie jviSttt on. to quote from "Times" article* which lie contended bad necessarily fiM the effect of .«&♦ caura uins the strikers in tho attitude they had taken- up. It *vas smwestod that the fiovermnenfe were not sincere in their measures for the protection of tlio public, but bad waited luitii the strikers bad perpetrated ac's of violence which put them beyond the pate of sympathy, in order to then crush them with the power of the law. ' Atint-her "Times ' nrtielo contained the p&ssagc :--"Are three. tlioUsand citizens and their wives to be ridden dawn and batoned without remonstrance S-- There Jiofhgig;

in the iicwb published at the timo in any of the papers to justiiy such a statomci.it . That kind of inflammatory stuff at such a time called for_ tho most severe rumnicitt. In aiv article on Is'uv - ember ;i the "Times" said-"Wo do not believe that the assemblage oi this largo armed force would fcavo been ! necessary if tho Government, with, tho assistance of the police at its command. bad displayed firmiiesi and res<slnt.ion at the- outset of this trouble.'' Counsel went oh to recall tho fact that the Wellington wharves' vero .taken possession of' by tho strikers. Under these circumstances tbo Government could only wait until th'.-y had chough foi'co to regaiii possession _of tno wharves. Instead of supporting tho authori.ti.es, tbo "Times" had adopted a policy of sneering and jeering at tho action of tho authorities in getting sufficient force to prevent the disgraee- ■ fwl scenes thai wtfro going On at. tho timo. There was jjo doubt ibout it that this was playing tho game of the Ited Federation. The suggestion made by tho "Times" that & largo .a'rnyod ,for& 'bad been brought in to crush trades unionism was wide of tho facts, as tliev all : know, and was calculated to-insidiously encourage tho strike. 'Hie "Times" did not play tho game of supporting tho authorities in rlto interests of tbo people, biit promoted tho idea that tho section ;of public opinion, which it represented was against the workers oofljiiiig under tho Arbitration Act and was against the Government providing constabulary for tho control of riotous proceedings itf tho community.

inconsistcnoifi As showing its. inconsistency, tho "Times" lon October sam that tbo waterside workers iir. ton who went on strike were completely in tho wrong. What tho "Times" had doiio ',vas not to ciicour.ago 'tbo strikers to riot, but to encourage thorn to continue oft .strike. It had encouraged them to hopo . for success Hi their efforts to escape registering under tho Arbitration. Act. This was playing tho game of tho lied Federation. Tho Federation., lor its envn reasons) desired to remain outsjdo the Arbitration Act, and the "Times" encouraged it in that attitude. Connsol quoted the. following extract ircun a . "Times" nrtielo of December 10 in referenco to the Lyttelton by-elcc-turn:—"'So far. as this contest -is concerned tiiero can bo no doubt about tho . ultimate issue. The. seat must bo won bjV tho Federation of Labour, 11l ' (deciding between tho two candidates; Liberals. may be depended upon to vote for progress as against tno forces o.C • reaction." This statement, said Mr. ■ Morison, "was amplo justification tor every word that The Do.mi.nion had said !. with regard to the trend,, of tbo noiicy of tho '■ 'Xew Zealand Times' ' nowspapev. There was an express invitatioi' to voto for the Federation of Labour. Who could say what effect it might havo luiu on tho strike?.. •-

Significant Silcnco. la. his concluding remarks Mr, Mori-' son said that the jury would remember ■ that during the.'strike, a- number ot riots, occurred, AH that tlio "Times" did in rcforonco ,to theso events was, in a very milk and water way, to disapprove of them. Upon tho l'ontherstou Street riots tho '''limes" did not make a smglo editorial comment at all, As to tho Post Olfieo Square riots, tho ■ ''Times" report showed that a fusillade of stono came from the crowd before • • tho . constables charged.. Yet, in. its'. ■ editorial columns, the "Times' blamed tho constables and not .the mob. Counsel contended that the "Times" had plainly , disclosed its sympathies with tho Red Federation. . It .had openly urgr o.J that 'Liberals should throw in their, lot with tho Socialist-Anarchist. organisation. fiis. friend, using a big mag* liii'ying:and: distorting glass,.said that . tho "ruinous methods" referred to were - crimo^Such,.a meaning, was iiot to bo read into Tub Dominion article.. In view of (ho lino tho "Times" took up oil December 10, could it complain justly, o.f the. treatment it got at the hands of • Tin; Dominion? lie invited (.lie jmy, as plain ► commoiiiseitso men, to say that. it: could not. It was a matter .of political criticism between tho first. _ and second ballots, and it was criticism ;of a journal and not of a company. It'. had not beeii suggested that tho ''Times" had supported lawlessness and • crime, but that it had encouraged tlio strikers, not dircctlys but insidiously, to lem a i)i strikers. To all intents and . purposes tho article was ■all comment.. "Wha't. -*t were truer • in substance and fact. \ Guardians- of Publio Opinions.

"Yon," said counsel to the jury, "'are tlio guardians of public opinion, You are tlio judgec of whether 'o.r jiOt jv newspaper has exceeded tho fair bounds of criticism,. 1 invito yoii to consider whether. If .you give a verdict to tlio. plaintiff.. in. fife you will, not •oe stilling criticism and muzzling tlie Press. 'It is not a question of m,v opinion or yours. As a matter of pulihr; gen®\i} interest •it is a tiling of the utmost importance that everything 'Dqwkiqh .say* should bo mercilcsslt' pu'led to pieces by tlio- 'Times,' and that everything tlio ' Times' says should bo similarly treated by TiiE iDoMiNiON. I ask you not to be parties to - muzzling tlw J'ress . or «tiflmg criticism at election time. Tha important. question is iiot. this paper or that paper, but tho right of every paper to piill to pieces the policy and advocacy of another paper and liold it up to criticism.'' Finally Mr. .Morrison submitted that tho ' "Times''' and Dominion should bo .left to settle this dispute with their pro.per weapons, "pen and ink." POINTS IN DISPUTE. MR. SIvEIWETT TOR THE PLAE?« TIFFS. - Skcrrett, taking tip tlio caso (or tlio plaintiff company, Sulinflttcd that cq.unsel fei" tflic* 3ei'p]i(liiiii's Jjftd failed to distinguish fact and cffininipiitj fliijf further that tho material of the. cvidcnco put in by Mr. .Morisou. did not afford any • .ground of comiiirtif. He cited authorities in icteionco to tlio plea Of fair comment and asked His Honour to direct tho .jury also that there was 110 ovidence whatever in. .support of tlio plea of justification. Tlio article was .ii.ot /an o.rclii'iary jiolitieal article, but one in wliic:h misconduct was alleged. It. was obvious that should tho ■ "Times" bo killed The Dominion would have no trado rival. Mr. . Mori son's spcccli to tlio jury was a political .iddress. Views hi'ay. bq expressed in controversy, but. tho critipi'siii. must be fair. A company was a legal entity, and had a business character, and if tlio "Times" Company .was accused of Having f con- - ducted its newspaper in a. certain manner that accusation might seriously injure the business -of the company. . Ono of tho objects of Tiil DowiNtox, ho urgedj 'Was to iiijtiro the "Times"" with iho business community '■ and nidnco business people to withdraw* - tlioir H ad> , vertisements from the_ "Times.. 1 [ The DomiN'SOn - article., lie- continued, was i written with the intention of ■■sjtggcs.t'ijip i-fej the inn.pl'oj'crs.'of i iioss .wnvmiuiiiy generally that rhey should boycott tlio "Times," and deprive it. of 0110 of its chief sources of rovenue, That was the gravamen of the charge. If that article was aii election nrtielo then tlio stab of t.lio assassin was criticism, and there were assassins in business just as_ there were. ■n.Ssa.ssinS of tlio body.. Was a paper to be. permitted .to publish- such an article to cripple and crush a malp That was 1 ono of the great qticstioiis tho jurv had to:, decide., , ancj. .ho asked, the .jury. t,o iio'fc give.- ..sanction to comjjetitio.il which was hot clean and fair. The suggestion was made- that the article relefred to the Lyttelton election, but he. declared :that ;tho-artiulo eommonced nud concluded lib- an at-. tK>k on the "Times," and that the Lylteltsa ejection ouly got.in as a passing topic. Theic was oujy olio mwniug to

he taken out of The Dominion article, and that was that it charged , tho "lXmes" With the encouragement of lawlessness, etc. For tho words complained of to-be fair comment it must he upon a matter of public interest, and must be bona fldo and without mnlico. A riioro foundat.ionless ploa of fair comment had, he argued, never been put before a jury. • '.. . ;. ' _ Tho Ploa of justification. Mr, Skerretii submitted that . not a traco of evidence had advanced in support of the plea of justification of the chargo that the "Tiiiies" had encouraged sedition and crimed He had shown, oh tKe contrary, that the conduct of that nowspapor during.,tlio,strike was careful; moderate, uiid prtideiit. It could not bp said by any rea&onablo mail that tho • "Knifes" wero more than tho 'expressions of. a' fair and. fcandid niind .upon'- the difficulties arising out of the strike. So far from. encouraging violoncoor rioting, the "Times" liad gone out of its way oh every occasion to show itsdislike arid condemnation of it. The.plea, of fair comment was disposed of by th<> language of -the article complained bf; In their plea of .justification, tho defendants.liad, at tlio list hour hurled defiance'at their opponents in the action, and thrown down • the gago ;of battle on the floor of. the Court. Ho asked the-jury to award : substantial d&'ihageS. It should'be remembered; lie said, that The Dominion could; at. any time Save 'terminated, this litigation by withdrawihg the charge .that the "Times" had encouraged. sedition and crime, • . - I

Mr. Morisott:-My. friend should , not say that.'.'-No offer was made. ■: .Mr.' Skerrett: I do not mean that an offer was made. ./. Mr., Morison:. What does ihy friend' ihean? Vv : . Mr.'.Skerrett said that,if.'the'defendant company had withdrawn the charge ifc would have been'impossible for the ■plaintiffs to. proceed with the action'.

His HONOUR SUMS UP, In his summing lip; His Hbiioiir said that such actions, between newspapers "were.rare, but' in 1J96 there <was-' a somewhat , similar case .. ih which one paper dubbed another "irulgarj, ignorant, and soiirrilßus;" ;ahd said that its circulation was tho ' lowest' in Britaih,' and "Submitted..the'fact for the considerat'idn bf advertisers,". " Thb'first portion quoted was held to.. Be libt' libellous, and the second was adjudged libellous. There, was ah old Scotch proverb tb : the effect that engaged iii the bne craft should not quarreL ' 'However, hero a quarrd had anfcen, and thb jury niust approach the mattbr, .quite impartially.... THb _first. ' questioh. was, ~"Was this statement in The Dominion dealing Wijjh the , plaintiff ; cbmp&ny's business?'' . Words reflecting on , the business of a company would bo something concerning the company, and in such a case the jury wbiild • havo a right-to.,give damages.- - His. 'Honour-defined-a libel as the upholding of a person to ridicule 'or disrespect. In this cash the ipldihtiffi was. a company, and so the jury had to find a libel not against, -the '.directors;; but against, tho company. . If the jury could find that in ;the aHiclb of, .December ,11; The Dominion charged the "New Zealand Times" Company with approving of tho' Red Federation; methods; and with having allied itself with theßed Federation in its -methods then, of cotirse, it iilbant these people .wero jiist- as backas - their allies.. It.was for, the jury to decide whbther such a: charge had been made..

A Question of Interpretation. . "It is for you," His fio'nbur remarked; "to say if yoii think that this means what is-said, in pari-' • graph of' tic ? S!ijnfiff , fi , ,^Mm, i> 4Wely,' "Tlie dbfbn'dahtebmpanythßreby.'meant'' . that < J&n4»;,'" liewspajwr/.ffoni Hiiiie '.'toY-time, 1 . 'advocated' the and isujppori of the, doctrinbs ' arid of^thesaid United -.Federatibn' of, Labour' and. its leaders v;; ', thereby .encouraging riot- : ing;, lawlessness, and'.cri'irie. .'lf you think'that-was: the. irieaiiing.';of' ; the article, then you will find th'aVit was defamatory. It is hot .denied at all that if th&t was ' the' sense of ' ;th« article it would be .defamatory! What the. defbndint, company -says is this: . that, that was;riot the meaning bf thb tho article'. does' not charge xlio "Times" Company - with allying tlieihselvb'a'witli the Red Fbderation and approving • thb; Red. Federatibn methods. ' Defendants say 'that the Words do riot mean-that- the- 'Times' Company was allied with the Red federation, but that.the 'Times' was ' sumtorting.- thb .Red Federation, in. the strike; and hot approving; apparently, or its. methods or, aims or anything' is for you to say if . thearticle did not go further than : that. Ihe . onus no doiibt rests on tlib -plaintiff of showing that it is libellous.' Do you thmk that that onus lias been, discharged? The next question is: An> the ■ words tru'o in. their ordinafv B ® ns s' r ' 1 . The defendants have not K ~ Justification by saying- that t ?i, fll ™ s 1 approved of the methods of the Red liederatioh. They havo n n V g A v ' en al,y «7 idcn °e to -that effect. «ut they say that the words do not niean.that, but that the 'Times' supwrted tho,strikers arid the. candidate, M Combs... If .you reply; 'Yes' to the 10U ' l - tl,e ariic l° fair and bona Me comment m tho matter previ°F?'y published by, the 'Tiines' iii the newspapers put in evidence?") then it 1 > i s ck/V that the fourth issue ("If d c . iamatory and not., fair . comment; to % Plaintiff company entitled? J, is of very, little value one T^n°r'V® - f y° u ; aiiswer issae 3 Yes, then you would have ,to .say that .theso words wore -not truo in tho sense v in. which- they wero used, i.hus, there would be no conflict between the two' issues."

Dealing with : tho point .as to " fair oomment,; His Honour read authority to show tho jury clearly what fair comment was. _It .must, lio said, be' a comment,'and not an-assertion of some raat^. c . f ..¥t-, -;A- comment Meant a;; criticism.The question of was-ohtirajr oue 'for ,'tlie jury. They could not give more than' tho amount claimed,-'but 'could ■' givb 'as little as they liked: Unless tle/ cbnelutM W 0 J US > al «o'they wero'.jiot Thnv Viir) + ® lvo ■ putufcivo damaged, inej had -to consider wheHior +1.« article disclosed that wa !■ tiveness behind it ' His Honour fn conclusion, remarked, that"' he had brushed aside-a -good deal of what both counsel had said, ■ which appeared to him;to be irrelevant. ' The main ques. tion was : "Does -tho aHicle bear tlio meaning : the plaintiff says it does" ? : Issues and Disagreement. Tlio issues put id tho jury were• .1, Was tho articlo in question published of and concerning the plaintiff company?. .. . 2. Is the article defamatory? . 3. Have the words tho meaning alleged in the plaintiff's statementof claim i l . : ■1. Are the words truo in their ordinary-sense? 5. Are the words fair and bonafide comment on tho conduct of tho plaintiff company in its publication in the "Now Zealand Times" ? 6. What damages, if any, is tho plaintiff-company entitled to recover from tho defendant company?

The jury, who retired at 5.24 p.m., Were away four hours. When thoy returned, His Honour asked the, foreman if thero was any ~ chance of the jury agreeing. . 'iho foreman: 1 doa't think there is tho. slightest oharico. His Honour asked if there was any chanco of a majority, verdict (9 to 3), and the foreman replied that there did not appear,.to'bo any chance whatever. Tho jury was.then discharged, and on the ,motion;of Sir. John Findlay a now trial wa«.ordered.for the present session, tha da'to to be feed hy the Itefristrar.J