HEADLINE AS COMMENT

Greymouth Evening Star, 24 November 1930, Page 3

HEADLINE AS COMMENT

DAMAGES AGAINST NEWSPAPER. [PEB PBESS ASSOCIATION.] WELLINGTON, November 21. s Damages amounting to £25 -were g awarded against the Wellington Pubr> lishing Co., Ltd., proprietors of the r ’ “Dominion” newspaper in a libel act tion in which Edward James Ashby a claimed £95 from the company in L . respect of the use of the words “a L . swindle,” in the heading of a compent cation claim. “The first question to j be considered, said Mr Barton, S.M., . “is, whether or riot the word used r (seeing that it appears in the headline) is part of a. report of judicial .. proceedings, for if it is. defendant has , the benefit ,of the protection knowri ’ as qualified privilege accorded by law ’ to such reports.” . Defendant, having chosen the words [ as.a heading of the report, had to satisfy the Court that it was fair comment in the matter of public interest, he added. Having carefully studied the headline and report, the Magistrate was-of opinion that there was nothing in the report which tended to cut or tone down the ordinary meaning of the word "swindle.” Any ordin-

ary iritelligent reader would, he thought, take from the word “swindle” fhe imputation that the claim described in detail in the report was a claim that was not jusu-■— by the happening on which plaintiff based it, but was an unjust claim, designed to procure payment to plaintiff by defendant of damages to which plaintiff was not justly entitled. In Mr Barton’s opiriion, the heading would convey to the average reader that the newspaper had adopted, and had therefore given prominence, to the view that the claim was an unjustifiable one. He thought that a reader’s perusal of the report would be influenced accordingly. “1 am of the opinion, therefore,” Mr Barton concluded, “that the words ‘a swindle’ are not a fair summary or indication of the contents of the report. The newspaper adopted the submission of counsel for one of the parties and used it as its comment on the report

of an unfinished case. The fact that it is the report of an unfinished case increases the risk of comment.” The Magistrate fixed security for appeal at £l2/12/-.