DAMAGES FOR LIBEL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 4876, 23 May 1918, Page 5

DAMAGES FOR LIBEL.

FOUR NEWSPAPERS INVOLVED

AN INTERESTING CASE

(Press Association Telegram.) WELLINGTON, May 22. At the Supreme Court to-day Mr. Justice Edwards and a jury were engaged hearing a case in which Euther Hopkins, solicitor, claimed £2OOO for alleged libel from e »S h ot the proprietors of the Post, Times, Dominion, and Auckland Herald. The alleged like] was contained in a Press Association telegram trom Christchurch, which was headed, ‘ T Solicitor struck off the roll, when, as a matter of fact, a rule msi only was applied for. The plaintiff claimed that his credit, profession, and reputation had been injured, and the defence admitted publication, hut claimed it was without malice, and pointed out that the papers published an apology before the action was commenced. Thomas William Schofield, manager in Wellington for R. G. Dunn and Co., said he had known plaintiff for six or seven years. When lie B a-\v the telegram in the papers ho at once thought some serious char gohad been made against Hopkins any action bad boon oommericod (not then concluded; to have him struck off the rolls. i ■it This closed the ease for pm mitt. Mr. Mver.s called Joseph barker, editor of the Evening Post, who explained how the error occurred. On February 28, he heal'd that had been an error in this message, and had had inserted in the newspaper a correcting paragrapn. it was the invariable rule to make a correction if a mistake occurred, in his experience of 25 years this was the first time a newspaper had not been given an opportunity of correcting an unwitting mistake. Mr. Myer s said the paragraph had been published quite innocently, without thought ox malice. In spite of what Hopkins said, it was ciear h e had not been practising his profession since 1914, and therefore Xiad not suffered p rof e s s'i opal ly. Plaintiff had never asked for the retraction of the statement, although he had all the facts before they were known to the papers He urged that it was a case for small damages. Mr. Blair repudiated the suggestion that it was the duty of the person defamed to persuade a newspaper to correct an error, and suggested that the damages should b<r substantial. He did not consider that the Wellington papers made such an ample apology as should have been given to Hopkins. His Honor said'an incorrect statement had been published, which was not privileged, and'it would be the duty of_the jury to award such damages as in their opinion would be a reasonable recompense for the amount of damage done The jury awarded £2OO. to he apportioned among the four papers at £SO each. Judgment was entered /for plaintiff accordingly, with costs against each' defendant on the lowest scale up to the stage of issue of the four writs and for the rest as f> ~ one action for £2OO, th? remainder of the costs to he borne m equal shares among the several defendants.