LIBEL ALLEGED

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22316, 29 April 1947, Page 5

LIBEL ALLEGED

DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS DAMAGES ACTION FAILS (P.A.) PALMERSTON N. April 29. Interesting points were at issue in a libel action heard in the Supreme Court yesterday arising from the erroneous publication in both Palmerston North newspapers of a decision in divorce proceedings. The action was brought by Geoffrey David Hyde, nurseryman, of Bulls, against the Mar.awatu Daily Times claiming £5Ol damages, but at the conclusion of the plaintiff's case Mr Justice Christie withdrew the case from the jury entering a non suit with costs against the defendant. One Action Settled for £IOO It was stated in the course of the proceedings that a settlement had been made with the Manawatu Standard for £IOO. Mr G. I. McGregor appeared for the plaintiff and Mr M. H. Oram for the defendant. The statement of claim declared that on March 7 the defendant company had falsely and maliciously; published irl a group of undefended divorce petitions that a decree nisi had been granted to the plaintiff against his wife, and named a co-respondent, on the grounds of adultery. “By this statement,” the plaintiff claimed, “It was meant and understood by the defendant that the plaintiff while still living with his wife, had applied for and obtained a decree nisi on the grounds of adultery." The plaintiff pleaded that he had been greatly injured in his reputation and business by the publication of the notice of the granting of a decree nisi. The defendant admitted publication, but denied that it was malicious and denied that publication injured the plaintiff’s reputation and business. Sydney Herbert Filchctt stated in evidence that he was the clerk of the Court on March 7. Counsel’s Submissions To Mr Oram, he stated that the petition of the plaintiff was dismissed on that occasion, it being made known that a reconciliation had been effected. Counsel asked that the case be withdrawn from the jury. No evidence, he said, had been produced to show that the defendant had suffered in reputation or in business. The words used were not defamatory. Was it defamatory to say that the plaintiff had secured a divorce on the grounds of adultery? The only thing to be considered by the Court was whether a defamatory statement had been made about the plaintiff. The words used were not libellous in themselves. The reaction of the ordinary man and the bulk of society would be to rally round the plaintiff in the loss of his wife. Following further legal argument His Honour said he was satisfied that there was no cause for damages. “I have given the matter a considerable amount of thought. There was no foundation for that statement, that the paper made that the plaintiff was still living with his wife,” concluded His Honour, y