ALLEGED LIBEL

Greymouth Evening Star, 15 February 1932, Page 7

ALLEGED LIBEL

SOLICITOR SUES NEWSPAPER) [PEB PBEBS ASSOCIATION.] WELLINGTON, February 13. An action for libel brought by John Joseph McGrath, a solicitor, of Wellington, against the Wellington Publishing Company, Ltd., claiming £lOOO damages and costs arising out of a report of proceedings in a licensing case published in the Dominion” newspaper, came before the Supreme Court to-day, the Chief Justice presiding. Counsel for the plaintiff said that the reference to plaintiff complained of had been given considerable prominence in the paper, and had been separated from the report of the remainder of the case. To the ordinary person it would appear from the heading that there had been serious impropriety on the part of a solicitor. The headings, said counsel, were grossly unfair and defamatory. Counsel read to the Court the statement which had been made by Mr Page, S.M., to both counsel, subsequent to the incident in Court. Mr Page said it was clear to him that at no time had he, in words, said to Mr McGrath that he should withdraw the remark. John Joseph McGrath, the plaintiff, said that neither the Magistrate, nor anyone else, had told him to withdraw the remark, nor had he been rebuked. He had at once withdrawn it, however. By the publication of the report he suffered very great annoyance. Witness did not get the impression that the Magistrate wished him to withdraw the remark. Two of his clients had said to him since that it did not seem wise to quarrel with the police or the Magistrate. Plainti: said that he did not advertise in the “Dominion” on any occasion. Last year an agent of the “Dominion” called with reference to advertising. The advertising man told McGrath that he thought he was foolish to quarrel with the newspaper. His Honor at this stage intimated to counsel for the defendant that there was still an opportunity of meeting the position to a very considerable extent. He was not expressing an opinion as to whether the paragraph was defamatory or not, but he would have no hesitation in saying, as a matter of law, that .it was* capable of defamatory meaning. Counsel for the defence said that the evidence would seek to show that the report was a fair and accurate one of the proceedings, and that the headings in this particular case were part of the report and must be read with it. The evidence would be that not only did the Magistrate say that the remark was an improper one, but he also stated that it should be withdrawn. The reporter would say that he took the remarks down at the time in shorthand, and counsel submitted that even if there were slight inaccuracies, it would be shown from the authorities that libel did not necessarily occur. It would be submitted further that the words “improper” and “rebuke” bore quite innocent meanings which were intended in this case, without intending to libel in any way the plaintiff. , Sub-Inspector Lopdell, who was conducting the prosecution when the incident occurred, detailed the circumstances. He said: “Mi' Page, who was presiding, said, ‘Your statement is improper, Mr McGrath, and you should withdraw it.’ I was on my feet alongside Mr McGrath and he said something which seemed to begin with ‘lt is notorious.’ I thought he was going to interpose something and I said, ‘I object,’ and the Magistrate said ‘I said your statement was an improper one.’ Mr McGrath said, ‘Very well, your I Worship, I withdraw it.’ ” Witness I thought that the Magistrate had spoken with emphasis.

Dudley M. Pilcher said that he had reported the incident in Court as it occurred. The witness considered that Mr McGrath had been rebuked. Charles Westwood Earle, editor of ’ the “Dominion,” denied any element of malice in reporting the incident. The non-advertising by plaintiff had nothing to do with it. His Honor assured witness that he did not for one moment believe, and would be sorry to believe, that such was the state of affairs in the present case.

Counsel for the defence said that the headings, for the purposes of privilege, were part of the report and they were justified by what the report contained. i

Replying to his Honor, counsel said that if the paper had been asked to it would have been only too glad to have published some “gentlemanly statement” with a view to easing the situation, but whether the reference to plaintiff was withdrawn or not, he considered that the rebuke had been given. His Honor: lam going io accept the Magistrate’s statement. I cannot help thinking it is correct. I believe it was Sub-Inspector Lopdell who said that Mr McGrath should withdraw it. Counsel said his main submission was that it was substantially a failaccount of a little breeze which took place, and if a remark hqd been made to a police officer imputing partiality to him, then it was a matter of public interest, whether it was published or not. This was an attack on a public officer and it should be reported. His Honor thought that not sufficient had been reported to convey “the whole atmosphere” of the incident. ‘’lf the whole incident had been reported the sting would have been taken out of it as far as Mr McGrath is concerned,” he said. The paper had refrained from telling the public that Mr McGrath had acted as a gentleman. Counsel for the plaintiff said that the headings could only be justified if they were fair comment and the report itself, only if it was fair and accurate. After further argument along these lines his Honor intimated that he would reserve judgment.