TIMES V. DOMINION.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLI, Issue 9743, 7 March 1914, Page 6

TIMES V. DOMINION.

HEARING OF LIBEL ACTION. WELLINGTON, March 6. (Per Press Association.) ™h«_ hearing of the action in which the New Zealand Tunes claims from the Dominion the sum of £3OOO for alleged libel, was commenced before Mr Justice Hosking and a jury of twelve at "he Supreme Court to-day. Sir John Findlay, K.C., opening the case for the plaintiff, alleged that after the Dominion had first of all stated that the federation of Labour stjod for everything criminal, it had then charged the Times with being an ally of the Federal ion, and that it supported its policy. Such attacks had fj counsel contended, injured plaintiff's business. Traversing the defence filed, counsel said the Dominion did not justify the charge, nor did it say that it was true. It was said that it was all done in the public interests. If it was a comment on facts, the facts must be true. ""Again, the comment must be fair. If it could be shown fhat the comment was inspired by maliciousness, then again the defence would fail. It was difficult to make out what the defence really did mean. The Dominion, having made the charge, did not attempt to substantiate it. but merely took shelter behind the vague defence which he had ju>, read. The otitis of proof distinctly rested on :h.- defendant. Mr Myeis. for the defcuce, contended : (1) That the words complained of were not reasonably capable of the innuendo alleged: (2) that the words were n it libellous per se ; (3) that they were not writien of and concerning the plaintiff company and its business. His Honor sr.id that the best course to take would be io grant leave to move for a non-suit, a-.; he eouid tot pretend to give adequate consideration to the matter there and then. Mr (I*. Morison. opening for tiie defence, said the leading aitiele complained of had not been pu: in tiie hands of a jury. I he central tact was that the comment was an eleciion article. Tiie defence said, iirst. that it was no; writing .ibeiit tile company at all. A company was a legal abstraction, end the position was thai one legal a!*:relion was suing another legal a Infraction. The second eom i .io'! was thai tiie wonb did not mean what the plaintiff.; said they I did: the ihird. that they were not libellous: and :he fourth, that th v were fair comment .on an election. The object of the Dominions article was to <£et lie" Tunes to withdraw its support- from the "Rid Fed." candidate for the Lytiehon seat. Net one thought was given to the question of advertising or circulation. Knowing what th<e Red Federation stood for. the Dominion had expressed the view that public opinion would not support the Times in its advocacy of the Kcderat ion's candidate.

Mr Skerrett replied, and Court adjourned I ill to-morrow. Addressing the jury in ilio Times-Dnmin-ion hbel action, .Mr Justice Iloskirig paid the tru s v moaning of iiie article complained of •va- for tlic jury to determine. It was no! for him. He had nothing whatt ver to <:u a? to whether it was in ''act a !i!v-l or not. Tin- jurv retired at 11.45. The judge placed the following issues before the iur\ :—•

(1) Was the article in question pub!i>he< of and concerning the plaintifF company (2)!-the article detamitorv?

(3) !■- the article fair and bonalide com ment on matter previously published by ihr Till! r-s. ill the in u>.pap ■rs put in evidence: (4) if defamatory and not fair comment to what: damage is plaintiff companv en titled