A LIBEL ACTION

Grey River Argus, 25 November 1920, Page 5

A LIBEL ACTION

POLLARD S PICTURES. WELLINGTON, November 23. At the Supreme Court before Kir John Salmond, James Furness, r* Uiraer at Huntly, claimed, damages for alleged Übel form the proprietors of tlve "Dominion." "New Zealand Her aid" and the "Auckland Weekly News." The statement complained of was to the effect that plaintiff was "a mental case.". Plaintiff claimed £1000 form the Wellington Publishing Company, proprietors of the "Dominion,"' aim £2000 from Wilson and Horto.i, proprietors of the "New Zealand Herald" ;uhl the "Weekly News." Mr H. H. Cornish was for the plaintiff and Mr A.W. ( Biia-ir for t(he defendants. A jui"y of twelve was empaunelled. Mr Cornish explained that the statement appeared in a report of a maintenance case, Bartley v Ba-rtley. The statement which was -attributed to a lawyer in the case, was admitted by fche defendants to be untrue, and the only question at issue was the anum.it of damages to be awardld. The statement orignally appeared i;i the "Dominion" and was copied into the New Zealand Herald" and "Weekly News. Plaintiff, giving evidence, said that lie enlisted in December, 1914 and during two years' absence saw service in •Egypt and Gallipoli, losing his right eye and practically the right hiind." The published Tetter caused him <;reat concern and worry. The paper published the name as "Furness," whereas he spelt his name "Furniss." Mr Blair argued that the damage .lone had not been as great as if the name had been spelt correctly. Plaintiff admitted that the papers unsolicited, published , apoligies, but said they did it out of policy «iot for his sake. Two witnesses gave evidence as to plaintiff's good standing in the community. This closed the plaintiff's ease.] No evidence was called . for the do-' fence . ■ Mr Cornish, addressing the jury, said that the public did not lightly view the suggestion that a returned soldier was a mental case. It was more j serious to say of &> soldier than of :»- civilian that he was "a mental case." j Mr. Blair, in his address, stressed ' tlie point that the papers immediately corrected what was an obvious mistake of the reporter who reported what he believed to be correct, and they also apologised at the earliest possible moment. They did not waul to injure any returned soldier. The amount or damages claimed was absurd. His Honor, in summing up, said that plaintiff had not proved that he had suffered any damage, but he had been libelled, and it was for the jury to consider the extent to which ho had suffered from the publication of the paragraph in question. Everyone who knew him, knew he was not "a, mental case." The jury awarded plaintiff £150 damages, £100 to be paid by the "Dom-I inion." with costs on the lowest scale, and £50 between the "New Zealand Herald" and "Weekly News,," with costs on the Ingest scale.