JOCKEY'S LIBEL CLAIM

Evening Post, Volume CXVII, Issue 110, 11 May 1934, Page 12

JOCKEY'S LIBEL CLAIM

CASE AGAINST "REFEREE"

NONSUIT APPLIED FOR

(By Telegraph.—Press Association.)

AUCKLAND, May 10.

The action for alleged libel was continued in the Supreme. Court today in which Samuel Henderson, the wellknown jockey, is claiming £1000 damages in respect of .in article published in the "New Zealand Referee" alleged to contain false and defamatory statements. t The defendants arc the Wellington < Publishing Co., Ltd., George Thompson, J printer, of Wellington, and Roy Cecil Temple, publisher, of Wellington. , The plaintiff stated in evidence that I "The Referee" published a correction i regretting certain false statements made, but did not give it much prominence. Mr. Justice Ostler: But they say they offered to publish anything you cared to say. They offered to throw their publication open to you to put the matter right. Why did you not ' take advantage of their offer? Witness: I had had too much publicity. Mr. Johnstone: Would you like us to write anything for yon now? 1 Witness: I do not want any publicity. Mr. Johnstone: Nothing would satisfy you other than the £1000 you claim, i Cross-examined the witness admitted that when he was an active .-jockey he did not always hold a "clear" licence, and on occasions conditional licences only had been issued to him. Dr. H. M. Goldstein, eye specialist, said that the plaintiff's sight was affected after the accident, but later it 1 improved, and in the witness's opinion the- plaintiff was capable of resuming his normal occupation in 1932. Three horse trainers gave evidencethat after reading in "The Referee" 1 that the plaintiff had a silver plate in his head they were not inclined to take the responsibility of employing him. 1 Mr. Johnstone moved for a nonsuit ■ on the grounds that the words of the article in their ordinary sense were not defamatory to the plaintiff, either ' personally or in relation to the trade, 1 calling, or occupation followed by/him; 1 that the innuendo set out in the statement of claim was not a reasonable inference to be drawn from the words j used; and, thirdly, that it had not been proved that at the time of the publica- ■ tion of the alleged libel the plaintiff was following the occupation of a , jockey. . ' After legal argument his Honour reserved his decision on the nonsuit ques--1 tion until tomorrow.