DAMAGES FOR LIBEL.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLIV, Issue 1053, 27 June 1924, Page 5

DAMAGES FOR LIBEL.

REMARKS BY MAGISTRATE;,

Par Press Association. IXVERCARGILL, June 26. \ An action for libel was heard in th«' Invercargill Magistrate's Court yesterday,! when John Ronald Hamilton proceeded! against the Southland News Company,. claiming £75 in respect of an alleged libellous letter published in the News some.' months ago. > , In opening the case for the plaintiff,) Mr Russell said that, a letter appeared| on December 7 last in the Southland News which appeared on the main page in prominent type as follows: —"It was- rather amusing to read an advertisement, of the producers' committee's scheme, wherein it, recommends Mr J. R. Hamilton as being the safest, soundest and most experienced man to administer the Dairy Control Act. We remember how "safe and sound' he was when a member of the County Council, when he overdrew his account by £I6OO, and how a good deal of money was wasted on jobbery and favouritism. We remember the castigating he got from a Judge of the Supreme Court for his bumptious arrogance and ignorance, and how he had to climb down and apologise and come to heel like a whipppd cur while representing Awarua in Parliament. We don't forget these things and we don't want again to blush for shame at. the behaviour of our representative on the Control Board. Let us leave Hamilton where he lightly belongs, in the lap of oblivion, and vote"for a gentleman whose record wo have known for at least 20 years to be pure and clean and progressive, and commanding the confidence and respect of the public, and of the many interests for which he has been acting as secretary for all those years."

For "plaintiff Hamilton, Mr Russell characterised the epistle as one of the most scurrilous, malicious and vindictive letters ever seen in a public newspaper, and the letter was put under the nom de plume of •"Dairyman" on the eve of the election, for the Dairy Control Board, Tor which ilr Hamilton was a candidate. The defence stated that the letter wa3 published in good faith. As Sir Hamilton's evidence showed, the newspaper had not been asked for an apology. Tho paper had been supporting the dairy farmers' candidature, in which Mr Hamilton was included, as opposed to the promoters' candidature, and they thus felt that they had a moral duty to perform to both sides and, through correspondence, give supporters of the opposite forces Ji, chance to express their views, thus being fair to the public. Further, it was necessary for the plaintiff' to rely on innuendo «T making his claim, and the speaker was quite sure that the effect of the letter ph the general public would not be so bad as Mr Hamilton might think. The Magistrate characterised the letter as solid libel and said it sho\v?d hatred, malice and spite. The News should have published a prominent apologv. Judgment was given for the full amount with costs.