A LIBEL CASE.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLII, Issue 7383, 8 February 1902, Page 2

A LIBEL CASE.

THOMAS v. JUDD.

Continued.

In the libel case Thomas v. Judd, continued after we went to press on Friday,

His Honor said the issues to be submitted were: 1. Is the passage in defendant's letter in the second paragraph of statement of claim a libel? 2. Is it true? 3. What damages is plaintiff entitled to ?

In his remarks to the jury, His Honor said the question before them was, simply, guilty or not guilty. The whole gravamen of the alleged libel, the sting of it, was contained in the word 11 brutality." His Honor then denned what libel was in the eyes of the law, and read authorities on the - question of justification. The plaintiff was no doubt an enthusiast in his work, and it was well for the education system of the colony that there were such enthusiasts. Counsel for the defendant had alluded to the pompous manner of the plaintiff, but it was for the jury to judge from his cool demeanour in the witness box whether he was the man who was likely to act with undue severity. As to damages, the plaintiff had put in a claim for £500, but Mr Skerrett had stated that his side did not want anything like that sum. Where a man pleaded justification, and the plea was not withdrawn, the law very properly took the view that that enhanced the amount of the damages. The jury returned an anwer in the negative to the first issues, and in the affirmative to the second.

Mr Skerrett asked that judgment be deferred in view of a motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of evidence. Mr Barton moved for formal judgment for defendant.

Mr Skerrett did not object. He would move in due course for a new trial. Judgment was entered for defendant, with costs, amounting to £40.