FARTHING DAMAGES.

Grey River Argus, 8 December 1928, Page 5

FARTHING DAMAGES.

AWARDED FOR LIBEL To Notorious Mr Hobbs. AN INTERESTING LEGAL POINT. (Australian & N.Z. Cable Assn). LONDON, December 6. There was a sensational ending to a libel actoin brought by William Cooper Hobbs, who figured in the “Mr A” case. Hobbs sued the Liverpool “Evening Express” in connection with a sketci of his life, imputing dishonesty. The jury intimated that it desired to find for the defendants. Lord Hewart gave judgment to defendants on the ground that plaintiff had been found a verdict for a fathing. He announced that the documents would be impounded and sent to the Public Prosecutor. In the closing stages, Lord Hewart said: “An. interesting poijnt arises. The jury has twice expressed the opinion that there must be a verdict for the defendants, if the law allows, and the most damage plaintiff has suffered is a farthing. In connection with the printed words that are- defamatory, the law presumes there is some damage. Is that presumption to be rebutted? May plaintiff appear obviously so worthless a person that it is impossible he can suffer damage from any libel?

Mr Birkett, K.C., said: “I can conceive such a case that even a verdict for a farthing would be judgment for the defendants. I have paid into the Court £l, which is 19/llj too much.” Lord Hewart: “I gather you ask for judgment for defendants with costs.” He then gave judgment accordingly. The jury formally awarded Hobbs a farthing damages.