UNUSUAL LIBEL CASE

Evening Post, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 113, 14 May 1914, Page 4

UNUSUAL LIBEL CASE

exposure op family history •'tjncle sued f6r damages: > (BT TELSORAPIt.— PRESS ASSOCIATION.) AUCKLAND, 13th May. A libel case with unusual features occupied the attention Of the Supreme Court until this evening. The parties were a, nephew (plaintiff) and his uncle (defendant), both bearing the same name, Robert Barber. Mr. R. Reed, K.C., appeared for plaintiff, who is a caterer in the employment of the Buchanan Cake Company, and Dr. Bamford for defendant, who is a caterer and baker. A sum of £501 was claimed as damages for libel alleged to have been contained in a newspaper advertisement. A peculiar Btory was related to the Court by counsel for the plaintiff, and. was supported in evidence. Several years ago plaintiff's mother (sister of defendant) met a man named Armstrong, and, believing him to be single,- though it afterwards transpired that he was married, lived with him in London as his wife. Armstrong changed his name to that of the woman, and the pair lived together as Mr. and Mrs. Barber. Plaintiff and the children born to them were kept in ignorance of the fact that the parents were not married, and that the father's name was not Barber. Wlu^n plaintiff was about eighteen years of age defendant wrote to his sister suggesting that one of her sons should come out to New Zealand, and, as a result, ho (plaintiff) came to Auckland, and went to work for defendant. Some months "later, considering that ho was underpaid for the work which ho was doing, plaintiff gave his uncle a week's notice, and was thereupon summarily dismissed, and went to the house of another relative. Defendant, it was said, called on him the same night, and, losing his temper, demanded that he should change his name, and told him of his irregular parentage. That was the first that plaintiff had ever heard of it, and he was considerably upset. His mother went from England to Fiji, and plaintiff went there to see her, an^l she then confirmed defendant's story as to the illegitimacy of her son. At her earnest solicitation he kept this knowledge to himself. LAWSUIT AND AN ADVERTISEMENT. Subsequently plaintiff .started in business as a fruiterer, and, about six years ago, joined his present employers. No further trouble occurred between plaintiff and his uncle until recently. In March last a case was heard in which plaintiff's employers sued the organisers of a military ball at Dargaville iri connection with an account for catering, and, during the hearing of the case, some statements were made reflecting on the quality 6f the food ( supplied by Buchanan's through their caterer, the plaintiff. The case was won by Buchanan's, but, before judgment was given, defendant had inserted an advertisement in an Auckland paper, the portion objected to being as follows : — " Public Notice. — I, Robert Barber, caterer, am in no way connected with Robert Armstrong, going under the name of Robert Barber, caterer, in Buchanan's cafe. 1 ' „ EFFECT OF THE EXPOSURE.' On the day after the first appearance of the advertisement plaintiff's employers demanded an explanation, tbeir grounds being that the statement in the advertisement, if correct, implied that plaintiff was deceiving them, and that he was not the man he professed to be. Plaintiff thereupon told his employers the secret of his birth, in order to remove froni their minds any suspicion that he had been guilty ot some offence. He was then told that he would have to publicly clear his name from all suspicibn of deceit, as the firm could not employ a man about whom so many things were being said. Other effects of the publication of the advertisement were said to be the prostration of plaintiff's mother, the revelation to his brothers of the truth as to their parentage, regarding which . they were till then in complete ignorance, the need for explanations to friends. Further, plaintiff had sacrificed his private business interests rather than go amongst people who might~have read the advertisement. Finally, to avoid remaining under a stigma, and defendant having offered to publish "an apology, but not in ¦ the form demanded, plaintiff ! issued a writ for libel. Defendant then paid sums amounting to £35 and costs into court, and again offered to apologise, but the 'form of apology offered was still not considered satisfactory. DAMAGES AWARDED. Yesterday, before the case was called, plaintiff offered to settle the matter if defendant paid him £15 damages and the costs incurred, and also inserted in | the papers a specified apology. Defendant agreed to apologise as suggested, but would not consent to the other terms. For plaintiff, it was contended that the libel was false and malicious, but this was denied by the defendant, who* however, admitted that plaintiff's true name was Robert Barber, < after his mother. After an absence of half an hour the jury returned with a verdict for plajntiff with £125 damages.