Dunedin Libel Action.

Gisborne Times, Volume V, Issue 142, 26 June 1901, Page 1

Dunedin Libel Action.

WAS THE DOCTOR A CAVILLER? The libel case brought by Dr Coughtrey against the Evening Star was for L2OO damages for the publication of a leading article on the Tramway Company’s annual meeting in the course of which the editorsaid : “Dr Coughtrey has made himself somewhat conspicuous within the last few months in the role of a caviller, and apparently delights in picking holes in any and every scheme which may bo advised by the city authorities or public-spirited citizens for the benefit of the community. His eye and his mind are microscopic in discerning blots, and he has been reckless in inferentially imputing motives in regard to the action which did not meet his approval. Presumably there is really hardly any other explanation. Dr Coughtrey attended the meeting of the company with set purpose of having a | fling at the directors and making mischief by throwing upon them the odium of treating the tram employees unjustly.” Mr Sim, counsel for the plaintiff, contended that as to the charge that Dr Coughtrey was a caviller, it was for the Star to show the evidence on which the charge was justified. As to the other branch of the libel relating to Dr Coughtrey’s action at the meeting, it would be shown that, so far from intending to have a fling at the directors, he actually informed Mr Tunson beforehand that he intended to ask a question for the express purpose of giving the directors an opportunity of denying a statement that the employees had been sweated; and when the question was put. and answered, Dr Coughtrey said it was the answer that he expected. As a matter of fact every statement made by the writer of the article was untrue. Further, in reference to the defence of fair comment, this was not a matter of public interest. Mr Chapman, defendant’s counsel, argued that whatever might bo now said,

it was never stated at the time that tho question was pre-arranged, and as for tho charge that Dr Coughtrey was a caviller* the justification coula bo found in letters that had been constantly appearing in the papers from time to time signed “ Millen Coughtrey.” In these letters he assumed to himself the role of general censor. The manner of his writing was such as to justify his being described as a caviller. The article complained of was mild as compared with Dr Coughtrey’s criticism of everything and everybody. There was nothing in tho article that plain commonsense men could call libellous or slanderous or defamatory. Dr Coughtrey has been continually criticising others, but the moment he got a touch of criticism himself he rushed into Court. The moment anyone called him a carping critic ho wanted damages, and the Star was to be punished. Tne whole of tho article was justified, in fact, and he ventured to say that the jury would not be parties to gagging the press by punishing a newspaper for , making remarks which the plaintiff had brought entirely upon himself. Mr Justice Williams, addressing the jury, said that if a man who was continually writing to newspapers came in for severe criticism himself he had no grievance, however severe the criticism if the criticism was honest. The jury found for the defendant company.