AWARDED £10 DAMAGES

Evening Star, Issue 18817, 16 December 1924, Page 6

AWARDED £lO DAMAGES

HOWARD ELLIOTT V. ‘ THE WORKER.’ SECOND DEFENCE NOT ESTABLISHED. “ BITTER AND INTOLERANT SECTARIAN ATTACKS.” (Per United Press Association.] WELLINGTON, December 16. Judgment was given by Mv Page, S.M., for the plaintiff to-day, awarding £lO damages in the libel action Howard Elliott v. the ‘New Zealand Worker’ and John Glover (publisher), claiming ( £loo damages for allegedly defamatory statements_ published in the ‘ Worker ’ on July 30 in its report of an address by Mr H. E- Holland, M.P. In his judgment the magistrate said that the two grounds of the defence raised were fair comment on a matter of public interest, and the truth of the allegation complained of that the plaintiff was sedilionary an ddisluyal. In regard to the first ground of the defence the magistrate held that fair comment must be an expression of opinion, not an assertion of fact. Some of tho defamatory passages in the article were admittedly not merely expression of opinion, but statements of fact. Tho magistrate held, therefore, that the defence that fair comment was a matter of public interest could not he maintained. For the second ground of the defence the defendant relied for proof of the allegations on the contents of certain articles published by or with the concurrence of plaintiff, and certain other matters elicited from the plaintiff in_ crossexamination, or proved at the hearing relating to the plaintiff's past actions. “The passages in three of the articles and pamphlets are bitter and intolerant sectarian attacks on the adherents of another church,” said His Worship. “ They are calculated to promote a feeling of illwill and hostility between different classes of His Majesty’s subjects, and some of them are in rny opinion seditious, within the meaning of section 118 of tho Crimes Act, 1908.” His Worship held, however, that In order to succeed the defendants must prove the truth of all the allegations complained of, and after careful consideration lie was of the opinion that the second defence had not been established. “ Looking at the whole of the circumstances, I propose to award the plaintiff the sum of £lO by way of damages, with costs on that amount.” Judgment was then entered for plaintiff, with costs (£4 18s).