JOCKEY AWARDED £5O

Evening Star, Issue 23325, 22 July 1939, Page 16

JOCKEY AWARDED £SO

LIBEL ACTIOH AGAINST ‘STAR; COUNSEL MOVES FOR NEW TRIAL After a retirement of an hour, the jury in the Supremo Court this afternoon awarded George Barclay £SO ou Lis claim for damages of, £5Ol against the ‘ Evening Star ’ Company. The jury found that tho facts contained in the ‘ Star’s 1 references to the riding of Barclay at the South Canterbury. races ■were true, but that the-words used by the paper’s racing writer,were defamatory. and that his comment exceeded the limits of fair, criticism. In this respect the jury took exception to the •words “better handled.” Mr A. C. Stephens, on behalf of the company, immediately moved! for a new trial on the grounds that the verdict of the jury was against the weight of evidence, and that there was no evidence to support tho third issue placed before the jury. Mr Justice Smith submitted the following issues'to the jury:—(l) Do you ■consider the words used to be defaraator? (2) Are the statements of fact contained in the article _truc?_ (3) Do the expressions of opinion in the comment exceed the limits of fair criticism? ' (4); What damages should, be awarded? The jury gave an affirmative answer to the first three questions,’ and assessed tho'damages at £SO. ONLY ERROR OF JUDGMENT IMPUTED, In-the course of his address, Mr Stephens reiterated, that the only charge the ‘ Evening Star ’ had made against (Barclay was that he made an mistake or. error of judgment. There ■was frequent criticism of jockeys in this country, not on the grounds of dishonesty or trickery, but that they did not ride.good races. If this action were to succeed, then, to say that a man had made a mistake or an error of judgment would "lay; the person who Bala or wrote that open to an action for defamation. And that could be applied to other sports—boxing, wrestling, or football. If judgment were given for Barclay it would be' defamatory to charge anyone participating in these sports with' making a mistake. Another result would be 'that sporting writers would not he able to give the public accurate information as to, the running of a race, and would not be able to say why any horse failed in its race. The public would thUsfae left without information as to the inner running of a .race Counsel referred to the special meanings drawn from the commentary by Barclay, and added that the issues in this' respect had been reduced to three. The plaintiff argued that the ‘ Star ’ meant that he did not handle the horse in an'efficient manner; and it. was for the jury to find whether to , say that he made a mistake was a charge of .inefficiency. They were actually two quite different things. As to the reference to the stable apprentice being put up and the suggestion that “the riding was not worthy of a stable apprentice,” these words did not carry the meaning drawta ■by Barclay, for the simple reason that the ‘ Star ’ commentary in this respect was qualified und explained by the statement that, if an apprentice had been put up, a substantial allowance could have been claimed—and that was the only reasonable interpretation that could bo made of it. Counsel also drew attention to tho fact that Baa-day' rushed-into court to claim damages, taking .particular exception, inter alia, to the statement that “all tho bad luck was in the riding when that statement did not appear in the ‘ Evening Star ’ at all. It was also generally considered reasonable to give a newspaper an opportunity to withdraw or apologise, that was, of course, if-' it were in the wrong, but that was not done in this case. INEFFICIENCY INFERRED. Mr Reed argued that only one inference could be drawn from the ‘ Star ’ commentary—that Barclay rode inefficient races. at Timaru and that, but for his riding, Foxlove must have won one or other of these races. .And if the jury were satisfied that the ‘ Star ’ did say that then did that not injure him in his profession as a jockey P A newspaper was no more entitled* than any person to say things that were not ooi<rect. The ‘ Star ’ went much further than saying that Barclay made an error of judgment—it said that he rode a rotten face.

His Honour; Mr Reed, if the word “ rotten ” is intended to suggest a reflection on the plaintiff’s moral conduct, then! must point out that there has been no evidence to support any such suggestion. Mr Reed quickly agreed with His Honour, emphasising to the jury that the direct inference the plaintiff took was that he rode inefficiently. What other meaning could bo taken? “It is easy to ride a horse from the Press stand,” said, counsel. “ but it is a different thing'to being. r Qji,.B ,horse racing at high. speed in an event ‘that in-a few moments.” Barclay gave the lie direct to the statement that when he elected to make up his lost ground he did so on a difficult turn and outside a. bier field. The jury must be satisfied with :the ‘ Star’s ’ facts before it co.uld accept its comments. But, even if the facts were true (and they were not in this case), then the comments must be fair and within bounds.' Here they were grossly, unfair. The owner and trainer were' both satisfied with Barclay, and engaged him to ride again on the second day. Counsel was quite prepared to admit that they could have (■'■’■med an apprentice allowance—but aid they have any guarantee that an apprentice could have got Foxlove into the highly desirable position Barclay did secure. As 'to the fact that no apology had been asked for, the 1 damage was done when the ‘ Star ’ published its matter,, and any apology would ill-repair that daniaue. JUDGE SUMS UP. In his summing up, His Honour said there was no evidence to show that the defendant imputed any improper motive to the plaintiff. There was no,suggestion against his moral character or that he rode a “crooked " race. His Honour said his ruling was that the words used were not capable of bearing that sort of imputation., but they were capable of bearing the imputation that th« plaintiff was not an efficient jockey on the day* His Honour traversed the facts' as advanced by the two parties, and said the only difference of any consequence between them related to the start of the Timaru Cup. He reviewed the matter of “ fair comment,” and remarked that in this case the language used was not violent or exaggerated. His Honour added that the claim for £5Ol as damages had been brought on the assumption that the ' Star ’ article contained the words “ and all. the bad luck was in the riding,” which was not so. As to any injury the plaintiff might have suffered, his owner and) trainer, those most closely associated with him, wore quite satisfied. They thought none the worse of him. Jockeys, like wrestlers or boxers or other sporting figures before the public, were subject tq proper public

criticism, and were expected to stand that criticism. His Honour concluded by saying that the paper had not been asked for an apology.- There had been no malice proved (or suggested) in the case, Mr J. G. Reed, for tho plaintiff Barclay, moved.that judgment be entered in accordance with the verdict of the jury. Air Stephens immediately moved for a new trial on the grounds given above. His Honour indicated that he would not enter judgment for the plaintiff in the meantime, and that bo would bear further ,argument on Mr Stephens’s motion later in the session.