HOWARD ELLIOTT .

Grey River Argus, 1 March 1927, Page 2

HOWARD ELLIOTT .

LICENSED TO CARRY GUN. A Paper’s Open Letter. CITED AS~LIBELLOUS. \\ I - .L 1.1 NGTON, February 28. Before Air. Page S.M., today, || tn , ard' Elliott, Douiiuioo Seurclary of Hie I'.P.A., .sought to recover £lOO from the New Zealand Critic newspaper, printed and published by George W. Wlaile Ltd., and milled l,y Mauri-:? Gold) borough for alleged nbol. ,Mr Boys appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Hoggard lor tho <!■■ fi'iidanl company. Ike alleged libel was contained in an open letter containing the following: () Your hip pocket in which it is be iic\cd \ou carry an aui<>matie j’evfdvcr. (b) No man is allow.nl to take Hu law into his own hands, and no man is justified in carrying an ant oniat ic pis 10l on his person. H’s ag.ioist the law. (c) We asked in turn sir, what sec. la.rian influence, if any, is brought, to bear to enable you to carry a pistol, which wo refuse to believe. The statement ol claim conlinues: Il was meant thereby that plaintiff had committed a crime punishable by ini prisonment in illegally carrying a, re volver. Il was contended llml the above statements were false and malicious and published without lawful justification or excuse. Mr. Boys quoted from the open let ter with the object of showing th-’ spirit of the article was libellous, ami that the three clauses slated were I ('clinically so. When counsel proceeded to abuse the paper, Air. Hoggard objected saying that it. was plaintiff’s character, not defendant’s that was'in question. Air. Page thought that counsel was entitled to comment on what was in the paper, but lie did not. consider Ihe language used suitable to the Court. Air. Boys proceeding said that plaiiv tiffi does carry a revolver (producing a nickcl-plaled weapon). Air. Hoggard: Is it loaded Air. Boys: No. (Laughter). Plaintiff, in addition to the usual r< gistration (said counsel) possessed a license to carry it about lor twelxc months. It was a revolver, not an automatic pistol, and it was carried legally under the Arms Act. No license couid be- obtained 1 o carry an automatic pistol. Expert evidence was given by L. U Caldwell that the revolver was more or less useless, as the spring of the hammer was too weak to explode the cart ridge. There was no such tiling as an au

tomatic revolver. Air. Hoggard asked for a nonsuit. He read the licenses granted to plaintiff, which showed that ho had been licensed to carrv a revolver since 1921. It was common ground that plaintiff carried v. revolver. Counsel proceeded to combat the statements that the passages extract ed were defamatory. Air. Boys said the defendant had dis’ missed the most serious statement in a letter as irrevalcnt, namolv. the imputation of the use of sectarian influence. He submitted that a reasonable case was made out. M r I’age said that he would take time to consider the matter of the nor-suit. JOURNALIST’S CLAIM. WELLINGTON, February 25. In the claim of Charles L. Hope, jour nalist. against the New Zealand Times, for £53/15/- salary, allegedly duo as th-? result of breach of contract, Air. Page. S.AL, said he had come To rne conclusion Hit plaintiff was entitled to a verdict. Counsel for plaintiff had framed his case on the basis of the amount recoverable would be the full amount plaintiff would have earned if he had served tinperiod for which ho had been engag ed, but, in his opinion, the true measure of damage was the loss plaintiff had suffered by reason of tho breach of contract. Ho proposed to allow evidence to be called on this point before fixing the amount.