LIBEL ALLEGED

Evening Post, Volume CXIV, Issue 130, 29 November 1932, Page 9

LIBEL ALLEGED

"WRESTLER'S CHALLENGE

LIMUTKIN'S CLAIM

SPORTING PAPER INVOLVED

A statement appearing in the "New Zealand Sportsman relative to the attitude which one professional wrestler allegedly adopted toward a challenge from another, matman forms the basis of an action.for libel which is being heard by Mr. T. B. McNeil, S.M., today, and in which Peter Limutkin is claiming £75 damages from Warnes and Stephenson, the proprietors of the paper. . . ' Limutkin this year has issued a series of challenges to other wrestlers inviting them to meet him either publicly or privately or for charity, and on 22nd October the following paragraph appeared in the "New Zealand Sportsman" under the heading, "Karasick Replies":— "In reply to Peter Limutkin's repeated challenges Al. Karasick makes the following statement through his publicity agent:—'l am pleased that Limutkin is in such a fortunate financial position as to wrestlo privately. I woujd not mind wrestling Limutkin in public. I have beaten him five; times in Australia and fail to see any reason why-1 should not beat him again. Let me see now. Yes, that's right, I'm meeting Walker in Wellington next Monday night. It's going to be a fairly stiff contest, too, but I guess I wouldn't nund wrestling a preliminary with Peter beforehand. Wouldn't be a bad sort of a "pipe-opener." But you can toll Limutkin from me that this charity business is all "bunk." AH he's looking for is a good house.' " "FALSE AND DEFAMATORY.'^ ' ¥^r 0" °'Xe San appears for Limutkin and Mr. W. P. Pringle for the defendants. On behalf of Limutkin Mr. O 'Regan contended that that statement was lalse and defamatory of the plaintiff m every particular and was calculated to bring him into public contempt and ridicule and was an imputation that the■ plaintiff was .incompetent in his trade or occupation as a wrestler.Mr. O'Began, in opening the case for the- plaintiff, wont on to .say that the plaintiff was,a-wrestler of manyyears' experience. He had wrestled practically all his life ' and in practically every country in the world with the exception of the United States. Ho had come to New Zealand in April of last year, and between that time and August of this\year had had a number of .bouts witli varying success. Asa matter of fact, counsel said, iiimutlda had had an extraordinary run of bad luck physically, and had lost most of his bouts. The statement appearing in the- "Sportsman," he submitted, resulted in considerable damage to- Limutkin's reputation, although he- contended the evidence would prove that it had never been made by Karasick, but was the piecing together of idle conversation at various times between a man named Utting and Karasick. Uttiug, he understood, -was the publicity agent for the Wellington Wrestling Association, and the paragraph was' what Utting thought Karasick would.say, although Karasiek had never made any such statement for tion.On 29 th October, Mr. O 'Regan went on, the "Sportsman" had published the following correction*— "Al Karasick is annoyed with the paragraph that appeared in last Saturday's f N.Z. SportsmanAin which he was represented to have stated that he had defeated Limutkin 'five times in. Australia. . 'AH,rot,' said Karasick. ''I authorised no Press agent to make such a statement. As a matter of fact.l have only met Limutkin on one oeoasion, when we drew in Melbourne s6me years ago.'\ Karasick ■ also intimated that-he would not mind, wrestling Limutkin if any association would care to stage the match."

Limutkin, however,, aid not consider this explanation was sufficient;, and: he had taken the present action to clear his reputation and vindicate his rights.

(Proceeding.)