JOCKEY'S CLAIM AGAINST NEWSPAPER

Evening Star, Issue 21717, 11 May 1934, Page 8

JOCKEY'S CLAIM AGAINST NEWSPAPER

NONSUIT POINT RAISED [Pb« XJkited Press Association.] AUCKLAND, May 10. Samuel Henderson, a jockey, pioceeded in the Supreme Court against the printer and publisher or the Kcferee.’ claiming £I,OOO damages. His counsel said that in 1932 Henderson decided to go to England, but the Racing Conference refused him a clearance. He went to England, but was unable to ride. He returned in July. -UioJ, and shortly afterwards the defendant journal published an article giving leasons for the Racing Conference s refusal of his clearance. The article said the conference had acted on medical advice that Henderson was not fit to rid© again. - Tlig article also said, that Henderson had a silver plate in his head, and another fall would be fatal to him. .. ~ , -r, Plaintiff in evidence said the Referee ’ had published a correction regretting certain false statements made, but had not given 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. . . ~ , Dr H. M. Goldstein, an eye specialist, said that the plaintiff’s sight was affected after the accident, but later it improved. In witness’s opinion the plaintiff was capable of resuming his normal occupation in 1932. Three horse trainers gave evidence that, after reading in the 4 Referee that the plaintiff had a silver plate m his head, they were not inclined to take the responsibility of employing him. Mr J ohnstone (for defendants) 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, calling, or occupation followed by him; that the innuendo set out in the statement of claim was not a reasonable inference to be drawn from the words used; and, thirdly, that it had not been proved that at the time of publication of the alleged libel the plaintiff was following the occupation After legal argument His Honour reserved his decision on the nonsuit question until to-morrow.