JURY DISAGREES

Dominion, Volume 37, Issue 210, 2 June 1944, Page 6

JURY DISAGREES

Claim For £lOOO Against “Observer” ALLEGED LIBEL OF RUBBER COMPANY (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) AUCKLAND. June 1. After a retirement of a little over four hours Ibe jury failed to reach an agreement in the case in which Marathon Rubber Footwear, Limited, Christchurch, claimed £lOOO damages for alleged libel against the “New Zealand Observer.” The case was heard by Mr. Justice Callan. When the jury .returned the foreman assured his Honour that there was 110 chance of reaching a verdict either way by a majority of nine to tffrqe. The jury was discharged.

Summing up, Mr. Justice Callan said the published article complained of and the case had a slightly political flavour. In few subjects was partisanship so keen, so uncharitable and unreasonable as in political partisanship. Consequently, he warned jurors of the danger of allowing their judgment to be swayed bv any political bias or by their views on free trade and control of industry. The background of the article in the “Observer” raised big and difficult questions upon which honest and intelligent minds might differ and were constantly differing. There were those who said control and planning of industry had dangers for the country. It looked as if some ideas of the kind were running through the mind of the man who penned the article and the broad general topic was of immense general interest to all citizens. An Act of Parliament had to be obeyed, but nothing in law prevented a citizen from criticizing the law and expressing the need for a change in Referring to the defence, the judge said it was not "disputed that the article 4iit the Marathon company. He pointed out that an article was defamatory of a company if it tended to lower the company tn the estimation of right thinking members of society and also tended to injure the company in its trade. If -the jury thought the article did not tend to lower the estimation of the company in- the minds of people and did not cause loss of trade to it, there was no defamation, but if the jury thought it tended to lower the company’s reputation and to cause loss of business, it had then to consider whether the article was. accurate in the facts stated, and if the comment on the facts was fair. If they were accurate and fair, that was a good defence, but if the facts were wrong, the defence of fair comment was gone. The judge said it was of great .moment to the community that fair and fearless journalism should be encouraged, but it was also very desirable that careless and damaging and irresponsible journalism should be discouraged.