£1000 LIBEL VERDICT

Dominion, Volume 19, Issue 46, 18 November 1925, Page 9

£1000 LIBEL VERDICT

LEGAL ARGUMENT IN FOXGOODFELLOW CASE . By Telegraph.—Press Associat-on Auckland, November 17.

A sequel to the libel action which resulted in John Ignatius Fox being awarded £lOOO damages against William Goodfellow, was the hearing by Mr. _ Justice Herdman to-day of a motion by Mr. Seymour for judgment on the jury’s finding. Mr. Northcroft (for defendant) moved for a nonsuit on the first question, which set out: “Have you ever heard that Fox was reported twice as a spy ?” Sir. Northcroft said he realised that his client must submit to judgment as to the verdict under other headings. With regard, however, to tlie first issue, he submitted the charge against defendant which it involved was slander and not libel, and that as plaintiff had not claimed special damages he could not recover under that heading. The words: “Have you ever heard that Fox was reported twice as a spy?” meant only a suggestion that Fox 'had been under suspicion of being a spy,' but had not in fact been proved to be such. No special damages had been either proved or claimed, and having regard to the rules affecting the law of slander, only special damages could be obtained unless the actual commission of a crime had been imputed to plaintiff.

Mr. Seymour, for plaintiff, argued that special damages had been proved, and that the verdict of the jury could be taken to be a granting of special damages. Further, lie claimed that the words as found by the jury against defendant did amount to an accusation of a substantive offence of spying as distinguished from a statement of suspicion. His Honour reserved his judgment.