A LIBEL ACTION

Evening Star, Issue 15268, 21 August 1913, Page 3

A LIBEL ACTION

FULLER v. THE 'TRIAD.'

VERDICT FOR THE NEWSPAPER

During the hearing at Auckland yesterday of the libel action, John Fuller, sen., against the ' Triad' newspaper,' there were many expressions of amusement.

Mr _C. M'Gregor (for plaintiff) dealt with incidents in the progress of the proceedings. The first letter sent to Mr Baeyertz complaining of " Grossly scurrilous and libellous articles" was crossed by an explanatory letter by the former to the effect that he was not responsible for the criticism, and that it got in without his knowledge. He offered to make what amends he personally could. Subsequently an interview took place Wellington between the plaintiff and the defendant, and the latter declared that he had no intention of offering an apology. The action was then proceeded with. It would be shown, said counsel, that the article did not contain comment, but statements of fact, and as such were not true. The 'plaintiff had for many years been a successful _ concert singer, and claimed that his voice now was as good as it ever had been; in fact, he had recently toured Australia singing at various places, and had in recent months assisted the Auckland Choral Society with oratorios, giving no less than 10 items in one night. The plaintiff gave evidence illustrative of his career as a vocalist, arid describing his recent tour in Australia. Witness explained what occurred in the interview between Mr Baeyertz and himself in Wellington in April, when the plaintiff said his attitude would depend on the apologv in the 'Triad.' Mr Baeyertz replied in a very precise manner: "There will be no apology." Mr M'Gregor: How does your singinc compare now with earlier times?— Much better.

Sir J. G. Findlay: Will this article injure you in professional engagements''— Certainly—to tell the public that my voice is like a pig's (whistle. _ Sir J. G. Findlay: To write in a bantering tone. Plaintiff (indignantly): Bantering, bantering. It is the most malicious I have evef read in rav life.

Sir J. G. Findlay: Well, you are the most sensitive musician I have ever met. His Honor: Do you suggest that vou lose anything at all bv "reason of the publication ?

Plaintiff: If the article has been widely read, certainly. His Honor: You have been at your own theatres for five or 10 years, an .„. cl » y° ll say that your engagements will suffer.'

Plaintiff: What I suggest, your Honor' His Honor: Answer the question. Do you suggest that your engagements will be effected?

Plaintiff: If I had no theatres no maniger would engage me on reading that irhcle. °

His Honor: io u are not answering the question, sir, and have gone very near contempt of court. You must answer the questions when I command. However, you refuse to answer, and I will leave the jury to.draw their own inference. The question was repeated, and the plaintiff said the view he took was that if ho. was bankrupt to-morrow his voice would not be an asset, Plaintiff denied that his voice was thin and nasal, and that his production was bad. "It comes out very easily," he declared. 'Sir J. G. Findlay: Like the song of a bird ? . °

Plaintiff: Yes, like the song of a bird. Sir J. G. Findlay: If anyone said vour voice was thin and nasal, how would"vou prove that it was not? Plaintiff: I would sing to him. (Laughter.) x ° S ) r , J - , C V findlay: Do you know what a, pig s whistle is? Plaintiff: It is very objectionable „ Sil ',. J ;. G - findlay: Do you know that the dictionary meaning is a "low whisper"? Plaintiff: I. don't; and I won't admit that the author is right. Sir J. G. Findlay: You should look up the meaning of the words before claiming £5Ol damages. s In replying to further questions, the plaintiff contended that the article' objected to was not criticism, but merelv abuse.

When the cross-examination of the plaintiff had concluded, Mr M'Gregor proceeded to call expert evidence as to the quality of the plaintiff's voice, but this was ruled out on Sir J. G. Findlay's objecting, the ground for disallowing it being virtually that experts could be°got in equal numbers to pronounce an opinion either way on the matter. No evidence was called for the defence. At the Judge's direction, the claim was amended so that half of the damages was claimed in respect of each imputation complained of.

His Honor, in summing up, stated that the first statement complained of was no libel, and the second, implying managerial meanness, was fair comment. After a retirement of 20 minutes, the jury found for the defendant on both issues, judgment being entered accord•"•lx. with, costs*