UNUSUAL LIBEL CASE

Evening Star, Issue 17234, 26 December 1919, Page 8

UNUSUAL LIBEL CASE

HOSPITAL STAFF RESENT IMPUTATIONS.

At the Hamilton sittings of the Supreme Court last week Mr Justice Cooper was engaged in hearing a libel action between 22 non-commissioned officers of the staff of the King George Hospital at Rotorua and Adair Gardner, printer, of Rotorua, Alfred iStyak, solicitor, Auckland, and Ellen Annie Gardner, widow, Rotorua, proprietors of the ' Rotorua Chronicle.'

The alleged libel was contained in a letter published in the ' Rotorua Chronicle ' of September 16, 1919, which referred to the plaintiffs, and was signed by "T. C. Wilson, Brighton road, Remuera," who could not now be found. Plaintiffs claimed that the words of the letter meant that none of the plaintiffs had been on active service; that the plaintiffs had shirked or by improper means avoided military service; that they were 'unfit or unqualified to hold their positions; and by reason of the publication plaintiffs alleged that they had been injured in their reputation and had been brought, into public odium. They claimed £2,200, being £IOO to each of the plaintiffs. The defence was that the article was fair comment. Eleven issues were submitted to the jury, and they were answered as follow: (1) Did the letter refer to the plaintiffs?— Yes. (2) Did it refer to Them in the way of occupation or calling?— Yes." (3) If the letter referred to the plaintiffs, did it mean that none of the plaintiffs had been on active service with tho N.Z.E.F. or otherwise *in the late war ?—Yes. (4) If the letter referred to the plaintiffs, did it mean that the plaintiffs had shirked or by improper means avoided being despatched on active service in the late war? —No..' (5) .'lf the letter ' referred to the plaintiffs,, did it mean that the plaintiffs are unfit or unqualified to hold their positions in the hospital?— No. (6) Is the letter defamatory?— Yes. (7) It' so, of which ■of them is it defamatory ?—All of them. (8) Is the letter fair comment?— No. (9) Was the letter published maliciously?—No; but defendants shewed gross carelessness in not taking steps to j ascertain the truth or otherwise of the I allegations in the letter. (10) Are the plaintiffs, or any of them, , and, if so, which, of them, entitled to receive any damages from the defendants?— Yes ; each of them. (11) If any of the plaintiffs are entitled to recover any damages, to what daimi(r_>s are they entitled?—£3, £66 "in" all.