ALLEGED LIBEL.

Evening Post, Volume LXXIX, Issue 64, 17 March 1910, Page 7

ALLEGED LIBEL.

CLAIM FOR £2000 DAMAGES. THE WELLINGTON ZOO. CHARGES OF MISMANAGEMENTThe hearing of the Bertling-Norton libel case was continued after The Post went to press yesterday. Plaintiff, Albeit Ernest Louis Bertling, superintendent of the Wellington Zoo, claimed £2000 damages from Johu Norton, publisher and proprietor of New Zealand Truth, for allegedly defamatory and libellous statements published i"n that paper concerning plaintiff, who considered such statements were falsely and maliciously made. Defendant denied that the statements were false or malicious, stated that the extracts contained words substantially true, and pleaded they were fair and bona fide comment on a matter of publics and national interest, published * bona fide by him as a journalist. He denied an ironical suggestion in the words "severed his connection" (with the London Zoo), and that Bertling had been injured in any way by the allegations. The case is being heard before «. special jury, ot which Ernest Gregory, Pilcher is foreman. Mr. H. H. Ostler, with him Mr. F. B : Sharp, appears for plaintiff ; and M?. T. M. Wilford, with him Mr. A. Dunn, for defendant. After the adjournment yesterday Mr. Ostler questioned plaintiff as to his expevie~iu.es at the local gardens. In any zoo, said plaintiff, the death-rate was high, but Wellington compared very favourably with other gardens in thi* respect. The- rate ranged from as high as 39 per cent, to 5 per cent, (the lowest on record), at the Sydney Zoo in 1904. . During his term of office the mortality at Newtown Park was just a shade over 9 per cent. This included all smaller animals, which were omitted in the eta. ti sties of the Sydney Zoo. COMMENT BY CHIEF JUSTICE. Cross-exairined by Mr. Wilford, witness stated that his qualifications, as he had told them to Mr. Ostler, were absolutely genuine. It was true several animals had died within a specified fortnight, but not so man^r as defendant stated. He had not ill-treated the liott; or any other animals. Counsel approached plaintiff as to his diary of the animals. The entry concerning the lioness was written in pencil, and the nature of the animal's ailment (i-icketts), in the adjoining column, in ink. Mr. Wilford : Did you write that entry (in ink) at the time the lioness, was brought ? Witness : Yes ; in the usual way adopt* ed when animals enter the collection. Counsel, after some pressing, ljemarked that it was a strange thing t)jafc all the other entries were made whcallj in pencil. Meanwhile the Chief Justice, having examined the hook, pointed out to counsel that there were other entries lof the pencil- ink combination. Mr. Wilford said he had overlooked these. Chief Justice : "Your methods (in this particular instance) are not fair; they are distinctly unfair." Counsel pointed out that he had not had time to go right through 4ha book. The Chief Justice : It's most unfair to the witness to suggest to the jury, as you have done, that this particular entry (about the rejected lioness) was the only one in which ink had been ttsed to complete the entry." Wm. Henry Foglia, wireworker, who stated he had made a special study of Australian birds, also gave evidence. He considered the birds and animals at Newtown Park were satisfactorily kept.