RECENT LIBEL ACTION

Evening Post, Volume LXXVIII, Issue 108, 3 November 1909, Page 8

RECENT LIBEL ACTION

APPEAL FOR A NEW TRIAL. DEFUSED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL. In a recent action for libel, Thomas Walter Stringer, X.C, Canterbury, v. 1 John Norton, publisher of Truth, the plaintiff was awarded the full damages claimed — £2000 — for alleged defamation published in that journal. Then Mr. Norton applied, before Mr. Justice Denniston, for a new trial, and this was refused. The application was carried to the Court of Appeal, which delivered judgment to-day. The grounds of appeal for a new trial were : That the damages were excessive ; that the verdict was obtained by unfair and improper practices by the plaintiff counsel, in that he made an unjustifiable attack on defendant and his newspaper; and that the judge at" the trial misdirected or non-directed the jury. j^_ . As to the counsel's" alleged unfair and improper practices in his attack upon the newspaper, the defendant had denied publication. This necessitated putting in the paper which' contained the article. Plaintiff had to prove publication, .and he_ could only do so as above-mentioned. His case was that the article was grossly defamatory, and he was entitled to put to the jury that a newspaper which published an article of this kind had no respectable ideals, and could have- no other reason for its existence than gain. The court held the mode of publication of the libel to be a relevant fact. As to the grounds of misdirection or non-direction, the judgment declared that from various reports of the judge's direction to the jury, it was perfßctly clear that there was nothing whatever in the summing-up from which any jury could imagine they were to look at anything else than the article itself to determine the intention. The objection that the jury was nok properly directed as to the defence of fair comment could not be sustained. There was nothing' in the facts presented to the court in the original trial from which any inference could be drawn that Mr. -Stringer was connected with the withdrawal of Brown's prosecution at all ; much less ' had He been guilty of improper conduct therewith. Also, there was no reason to suppose that tho jury was not properly directed as to the definition of a libel. On the plea that the damages awarded — £2000 — were excessive, the court held that the jury, under the circumstances, was fully justified in doing so. If the charges alleged against Mr. Stringer were true, he would have been ruined professionally, and would never after have been able to hold up his head amongst honest men. Not only was this charge made, but it was made in a way which, according to the writer of the article, was intended to be as insulting as possible, and the writer certainly succeeded in his intention. The jury would properly take into consideration the whole of the circumstances, and also the fact that there was nothing whatever in Mr. Stringer's conduct to give the shadow of an txcusa for what was nothing more than a cruel and wanton attack upon v him. Numerous cases could be found where larger uamages in actions for libel had been riven, and the court had declined to interfiles. The appeal was dismissed. Costs were fixed on the highe.it sctlp. Leave of appeal to the Privy Council was granted. Mr. A. Dunn, appeared for appellant , (Norton). Mr. C. P. Skerrett, X.C, wiLb. him Mr. A. Wright, for respondent.