JURY DISAGREES TIMES-DOMINION LIBEL CASE NEW TRIAL GRANTED

Evening Post, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 72, 26 March 1914, Page 4

JURY DISAGREES TIMES-DOMINION LIBEL CASE NEW TRIAL GRANTED

The hearing of the Times-Dominion ca*e in which the former company claims £3000 from the latter for alleged libel contained in an editorial article on 11th December, 1913, was concluded at the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon, before his Honour the Chief Justice Sir Robert Stout and a jury of twelve. Mr. C. P. Skerrett, X.C.. with him Sir John Findlay, 3K.C, and Mr. 0. E. Stout appeared for the New Zealand Times Comoany, and Mr. C B. Morteon. K.C., with him Mr. M. Myers and Mr. T C. A. Hislop for the defendants. After The Post had gone to press, Mr. SkerTett rose to reply to the arguments of defendants' counsel. He contended that the article alleged misconduct on the part of the Times. The law did not allow anyone, in the guise of controversy, to accuse anyone else of misconduct. The law had the highest Teepect for anyone's chai'acter, atid would not allow it to be attacked with impunity. If they allowed the press to impute misconduct they would have a degraded press — a degraded public opinion — and no one's character would be safe. The tone of the Dominion's article was venomous and malignant, and ite plain object was to injure the plaintiffs' business, and, if possible, to get business people to withdraw their advertisements. The great principle involved was, wa6 a rival paper to be admitted with impunity to engage in nefarious competition — to attribute disgraceful conduct to it 6 rival. The article was written at a time when it was calculated to do the Times a tremendous amount of harm. Fair comment must be bona fide comment and based upon fact. It was common to both papers that what the Red Federation stood for were methods of anarchy, riots, and criminality, and the point "for the jury to decide *wa6 whether the "ruinous methods" attributed to the Times in the article of 11th December were the methods of the Federation. HIS HONOUR SUMS UP. His Honour in addressing the jury said they must try and free themselves from any political opinions. Dealing with the meaning of " hbel," he said that a libel was considered to be statements that would hold a person up to disrespect in the community. In as far as the company was concerned, a libel could not injure the reputation of the men comprising the company, and it was for the jury to say whether the statements made were such as to make people not buy the paper or advertise in it. If a company was allied to the methods of the Federation then it was as bad a-s the Federation, j They must read the article themselves and see what meaning they took out of it. If all that was meant was that the Times supported the strikers in wanting a settlement to be made and the Federation candidate a€ the Lyttelton election, as the defence contended, then very little importance attached to the question as to whether the words were true in their ordinary sense. As to fan- comment, the meaning had been very well laid down by Rogers in his text book on libel. Rogers said that comment must be comment and not the assertion of some alleged matter of fact. A newspaper or a person had no right to assume facts and then make comment on them. The question of damages was one entirely for the jury. If they thought that the article had been written, in a fair-minded manner, even if it was libellous, then , (if they desired to award damages) they would not find what were known as punitive damages. If, however, they found that vindictiveness and bad feeling had prompted the article, then they could find what were known ws vindictive damages: Should they aeem that the company's business had suffered by reason of the article then they would find substantial damages. THE ISSUES. The following issues were put to the I jury: — 1. Was the article in question published of and concerning the plaintiff company ? 2. Is the article defamatory? 3. Have the words the meaning alleged in the plaintiff's statement of claim? 4. Are the words true in their ordinary sense?, 5. Are the words fair and bona fide comment on the conduct of the plaintiff company in its publication in the New Zealand Times? 6. What damages, if any, is the plaintiff company entitled to recover from the defendant company? At 5.25 p.m. the jury retired, and returned four hours later, the foreman intimating that there was no chance of an agreement. In reply to his Honour, the foreman said- he did not think there was any likelihood of getting even a thiee-quar-ters majority verdict. The jury was then discharged, and Srr John Findlay moved for a new trial to be held during the present session. His Hoaoar agreed, the date being left to the Registrar to fix.