NOT LIBEL POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS

Evening Post, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 45, 21 August 1913, Page 4

NOT LIBEL

POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS

THE FULLER v. TRIAD CASE VERDICT FOR DEFENDANT. (BY TBLEGBAPH--I>IUESB ASSOCIATION.) 'AUCKLAND, 20th August. The action for alleged libel brought by John Fuller against The Triad newspaper with claim for £501 as damages was concluded before Mr. Justice Edwards with a special jury of twelve at th© Supreme Court to-day. Mr. M'GregoT appeared for the plaintiff, and Sir John, Findlay, K.C., with him Mr. R. A. Singer, represented defendant. The alleged libel consisted of criticism of plaintiff's voice, which was likened to a pig's whistle, and imputed managerial meanness to him. There were many expressions of amusement in Court during the progress of the case. Mr. M'Gregor dealt with the incidents in the progress of proceedings. First a letter was sent to Mr. Baeyertz complaining of a "grossly scurrilous and libellous article, and was crossed by an explanatory one from the former to the effect that he was not responsible for criticism and that it got in without his knowledge. He offered to make what amends he personally could. Subsequently an interview took place in Wellington, between the plaintiff and the defendant/ and the latter declared that he had no intention of offering an apology, and the action was then proceeded with. It would be shown, eaid counsel, that the article did hot contain comment, but statements of fact, and as such was not true. PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE. Plaintiff gave evidence. illustrative of his career as a vocalist, describing a recent tour in Australia. Witness explained what occurred in the interview between Baeyertz and himself in Wellington in April, and plaintiff said his attitude would depend on the apology in The Triad. Mr. Baeyertz replied in a very precise manner: "There will be no apology." The action for damages folMr. M'Gregor: How does your singing compare now with earlier times? Plaintiff: Much better. Sir John Findlay: Will this article injure ' you in your professional engagements? . Plaintiff: Certainly, to tell the public that my voice is like a pig's whistle. Sir John Findlay: To write in a bantering tone? Plaintiff (indignantly): Bantering! Bantering,! It is the most malicious I have ever read in my life. Sir John Findlay: Well, you are the most sensitive musician I have ever met. His Honour: Do you suggest that you will lose anything at a}l by reason of the public publication? Plaintiff: If the article has been widely read, certainly. His Honour : You have been singing at your own theatres,for five or ten years and 4o you say that your engagements will suffer? Plaintiff: What I suggest, your Honour His Honour: Answer the question. Do you suggest your engagements will be affected F Plaintiff: If I had no theatres, no manager would engage me on reading that article. His Honour: Yon are not answering the question, six, and have gone very near contempt of Court. You must answer questions when I command. However, you refuse to answer, and I will leave the jury to draw their own inference. SONG OF A BIRD. The question was repeated, and the plainu^ said the view tie took was that if he was bankrupt to-morrow ( his voice would not be an asset. '.Plaintiff denied that his voice was thin said nasal, and that his production was bad. "It comes out very easily," he declared. Sir John Findlay: Like the song of a bird? Plaintiff: Yes; like the eong of a bird. Sir John Findlay: If anyone said your voice was thin and nasal, how would you prove it was not? Plaintiff: I would sing to him. (Laughter.) Sir John Findlay: Do you know what a pig's whistle is? Plaintiff : It is very objectionable. Sir John Findlay; Do you know the dictionary meaning is "a low whisper"? Plaintiff: 1 don't, and I won't admit the author is right. % Sir John J?indiay: You Bhould look up the meaning of the word before claiming £501 damages.. Replying to further questions, plaintiff contended that the article objected to was not a criticism, but merely abuse. When' the cross-examination of the plaintiff had concluded, Mr. M'Gregor proceeded to call expert evidence as iip the quality of plaintiff's voice. This was ruled out on Sir John Findlay objecting, the ground for disallowing being virtually that experts could be got in equal number* to.pronounce an opinion either way on the matter. No more witnesses were Called for plaintiff, whose case was closed. No evidence was •called, for the defence, and at the Judge's direction the claim was amended so that half of the damages was claimed in respect of each imputation complained of. His Honour, in summing up, said the first statement complained of was no libel, and, secondly, to imply managerial meanness was fair comment. After a retirement of twenty minutes the jury found for the defendant on both issues, judgment being entered accordingly, with coste. »

AVAILABLE ON SATURDAY EVENINGS. On the ground that it would prove of great convenience to working men, Mr. H. Poland asked the Postmaster-General whether he would provide for the keeping open of Post Office Savings Banks on Saturday evenings from 7 to 8 p.m. at those offices which are open during those hours for receipt of telegrams. "Arrangements will be made," replied Hon. Mr. Rhodes, "for keeping open Post Office Savings Banks from 7 p.m. to 8 p.m. at those offices which are already open during that hour for receipt of telegrams."