A LIBEL ACTION.

Evening Star, Issue 7750, 23 October 1888, Page 4

A LIBEL ACTION.

The libel action, Martin v. Gillon, was tried at Wellington yesterday. This was an aption brought by John Martin, formerly liceiisee' of the City Hotel, Clyde quay, against Edward Thomas Oillon, editor of the I ‘Evening Post,’ claiming LI,OOO as damages for an alleged libel contained in an article published in the ‘ Evening Post ’ on the Bth November last, headed “ The City Hottl Suicide,” and commenting upon the

proceedings at the inquest on the death of plaintiff’s wife, and also in respect to certain comments upon correspondence between the policeand the Licensing Committee, and which plaintiff published on the Ilth November. The former article was construed by plaintiff as intended to convey by the words “We can scarcely blame a child cursed with drunken parents,” and also by the words “ The police ought to have known that both the landlord and landlady were indulging in intemperance, and under such circumstances should have been especially alert in what went on in the house,” that plaintiff is an habitual drunkard; by the words: “ The police seem to have been to blame for not better advising the Licensing Committee as to allowing the license to remain in such improper hands,” that the plaintiff is not a proper person to hold a publican’s license ; and the whole article conveying that plaintiff was callous, besotted with drink, of drunken habits, devoid of humanity, and an unfit person to be a licensed publican. With respect to the second cause of action, plaintiff contended that the article was meant to convey that plaintiff was an habitual drunkard. Special damages were claimed on account of the depreciation of value of plaintiff’s interest in the City Hotel and damage to his reputation by reason of the publication. Defendant admitted the publication, but contended the article was fair and honest comment. After evidence had been taken, His Honor Mr Justice Richmond summed up, and the jury retired. After three hours’ deliberation the foreman intimated to His Honor that they were unable to agree, the division being seven to five. By consent the jury were discharged. Proceedings in the libel action, Martin v. Blundell Bros., arising out of the same question, were withdrawn.