MEANING OF WORDS

Evening Post, Volume CXIV, Issue 130, 29 November 1932, Page 8

MEANING OF WORDS

ARTICLE IN A JOURNAL

ALLEGATION OF LIBEL

SHAREBROKER'S CLAIM

Evidence almost entirely of a documentary nature was tendered in the Supreme Court yesterday at the hearing of a claim by Harry Ninham G-ooch, sharebroker, of Sydney and Wellington, for £1000 damages in respect of an allegedly libellous article published in "Tho New Zealand Financial Times" in November last year. Only one witness was called by each !- side, neither of the principals in the action, the plaintiff, nor Mr. Howard Elliott, editor of 'The New Zealand Financial Times,'' going into tho witness-bos. The plaintiff, in fact, was not present, his. absence in Australia being explained by his counsel as being due to business reasons. The Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers) intimated toward the conclusion of the case that ho had a clear opinion on the questions at issue, but before expressing it he wished to make a careful examination of all the documents. Accordingly, he reserved his decision. • . ..■■■■■ One passage in particular in the article was relied upon by the plaintiff in support of his claim. He alleged, inter alia, that the words used meant, and were intended to mean, that ho had tricked investors into subscribing for shares in Coal Oil (N.Z.) Ltd. The defence was a denial of the meaning attributed to the words by. the plaintiff. Further, it was put forward, that the words so far as they consisted of allegations of fact were in their natural and ordinary meaning true in substance and in fact. It was also contended that insofar as they consisted in expressions of opinion the words were fair comment made in good faith and without malice, for tho benefit of the public. ■■--.. COMPANY PROSPECTUSES. During a consideration of prospectuses that had been handed in with a bundle of other\data, some comment •was made both by counsel and his Honour on tho New Zealand Jaw on the subject. . ■ • ' ■ ' • • ■ "There is this to bo said about a New Zealand prospectus," said his Honour. "It has by s law to contain a great deal of information, none of which is contained in these prospectuses." . Mr. D. E. Hoggard, counsel for the plaintiff, agreed that foreign companies were give.n a great many privileges which would not be given local companies. The Chief Justice said he thought that if the law was lax in New South Wales he suggested that prospectuses issued there without the information which would be registered in New Zealand prospectuses might at least be prevented from being circulated in the Dominion. Mr. HoggarS referred to other documentary evidence in regard to the question of malice, and in support of an allegation that the general policy of "The New Zealand Financial Times" was libellous. The Chief Justice: There is no evidence of it. Counsel said there was one apology. Because there might be one previous apology, his Honour asked if it was suggested he should draw the inference that tho editor was a professional libeller. He ruled that the evidence was inadmissible. NEWSPAPER'S RIGHTS. Mr. Hoggard submitted eight propositions of law to the' Court, tho first of which was that a newspaper had no greater privilege in the matter of fair comment than an individual. "A newspaper has a right and a duty to expose a fraud if a fraud exists," commented his Honour. "There may be circumstances under which there would- be no such right, but where a prospectus is before the public I presume it is a matter' of public interest. . . . Surely if a company which was launched with all sails set, finds its way on the rocks when apparently it should not be on the rocks, under such circumstances a certain amount of comment is to be expected." .Mr. Hoggard: Well, it may be on the state of the company, but to go back five years and make attacks on people connected with the formation, I submit, is in a different category. Mr. Hoggard submitted that the plea of fair comment made by tho defence must fail. O.n the question of malice he contended there was intrinsic evidence in the article itself of knowledge on the part of the defendants of falsity. "INVITED CRITICISM." Mr. H. F. Johnston, K.C., who appeared with Mr. L. K. Wilson for the defendants, maintained that Mr. Hoggard had made no attempt to apply his eight propositions of law to tho facts of the. case. ; Some of his statements were so obviously one-sided as to bo easily dismissed. Mr. Johnston contended that Gooch had simply invited criticism. Counsel said he ventured to assert that when his Honour had read through the correspondence he would come to the conclusion that much' more servere criticism than was contained in "The Financial. Times" article was justified. It would do the plaintiff good to hear the criticism of many shareholders in New Zealand ana in Australia, and perhaps.he would then get a truer idea of how his actions had been regarded. ■ The Chief Justice: There is one thing that ought to satisfy you, Mr. Johnston,'isn't there? Originally the claim was for £5000' and now there is only a claim for £1000. Mr. Hoggard; The reason for-that is that judgment for £1000 would be •worth precisely the same as a -judgment for £5000. Mr. Johnston commented on the fact that the plaintiff, had not seen fit to come to Court. He submitted that under all the circumstances the criticism in "The Financial Times" was "only too mild." Counsel also contended that the attomept made on behalf of tho plaintiff to prove malice had failed lamentably. . / "ALL SORTS OF REVELATIONS." In his reply, Mr. Hoggard said there was no rule which made it' mandatory for the plaintiff to give evidence. The defendant Elliott, who had made tho charges against Gooch, had not given evidence. ■ Counsel claimed that Elliott was the one who ought to have gono into the witness-box. In dealing with the question of damages, Mr. Hoggard submitted there was evidence of malice in a circular issued by the defendants to the shareholders of Coal Oil (N.Z.), Ltd., inviting subscriptions. Tho motive behind this, it was claimed, was not a high motive of duty but a desire to sell the paper among shareholders of Coal Oil (N.Z.), Ltd. That, said counsel, was shown by the circular to shareholders promising them all sorts of revelations. The Chief Justice said he had not had the opportunity of considering or even reading all the rather numerous documents in the case, and ho would reserve his decision. C. W. Price and Co., auctioneers, will sell furniture/ wireless set, and new vacuum cleaner on the premises, Arundell Flats, top .Willis street, at 1.30 p.m. on Thursday. -