LIBEL CASE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXV, Issue 16550, 14 May 1914, Page 8

LIBEL CASE.

UNCLE AND NEPHEW.

A PECULIAR STORY, [Pk* Pbxss Associatioh.], AUCKLAND, May 13.

A libel case, with unusual features. occupied-the attention of the Supreme Court until this evening. Tho parties were nephew (plaintiff) and undo (defendant), both bearing the same name, Robert Barber. The plaintiff is a caterer in tho employ of the Buchanan Cake Company, and the defendant a caterer and baker. The sum of £5Ol was claimed as damages for libel alleged to bo contained in a newspaper advertisement. Evidence showed that several years ago tho plaintiff's mother, sister of the defendant, met a man named Armstrong, and, believing him to be single, though it was afterwards discovered he was married, lived with him in London as his wife. Armstrong changed his name to that of the woman, and the pair lived together as Mr and Mrs Barber, and plaintiff and other children born to them were kept in ignorance of the fact that tho parents were not married to each other and that the father's namo was not Barber. Ten years ago, when the plaintiff was about eighteen, tho defendant wrote to his sister suggesting that one of her sons should come out to New Zealand. As a result plaintiff came to Auckland and went to work for the defendant. Somo months later, considering that he was underpaid, he gave his uncle a week's notice, and was thereupon summarily dismissed. Defendant, it was stated, called on him tho same night and, losing his temper, demanded that he should change his name, and told him of his irregular parentage. That was the first that the plaintiff had ever heard of it, and ho was considerably upset. His mother went from England to Fiji, and plaintiff went there to see her, and she then confirmed tho defendant's story as to the illegitimacy of her son. At her earnest solicitation he kept the knowledge to himself. Subsequently plaintiff started in business as fruiterer, and about six years ago joined his present employers. Subsequently an advertisement appeared in an Auckland paper, the portion objected to being as follows:—" Public Notice.—l, Robert Barber, caterer, am in no way connected with Robert Armstrong (going under the name of Robert Barber), caterer, in Buchanan's Cafe.]' A writ was issued, and defendant paid £3s'into Court, and offered to apologise, but the form of apology offered was not considered satisfactory. Yesterday, before the case was called, plaintiff offered to settle the matter if the defendant paid him £ls damages and the costs incurred. Defendant agreed to apologise as suggested, but would not 'consent to tho other terms. ■ . The jnrv returned with a. verdict for plaintiff with £125 damages.