ALLEGED LIBEL

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLV, Issue 288, 9 November 1925, Page 4

ALLEGED LIBEL

ISSUES SUBMITTED TO JURY.

DAMAGES AAVARDED

Per Press Association. AUCKLAND, Nov. 7. In the Fox-Gpodfellow alleged libel case, the following were the issues submitted to the jury by Justice Herdman, together with the answers returned:—

Did defendant on or about 14tli July, 1925, referring to the plaintiff’s period of war services, say to Charles Parker concerning the plaintiff the following: “Have you ever heard that Fox was reported twice as a spy?” meaning thereby that plaintiff was of a base and traitorous character, and had committed a serious crime?—The answer was in . the affirmative, damages on this issue being assessed at £3OO.

Did defendant on or about the date aforesaid speak and publish to Parker or plaintiff: in his capacity as organiser of the Dairy Farmers’ Union the following words: “I have reason to believe that Fox is here in the employ of the proprietary concerns. I’ll tell you who it is—Nathan’s,” meaning thereby that plaintiff was a base, fraudulent and untrustworthy, and unfit to be employed by. the Dairy Farmers’ Union?—No answer. Did defendant on or about the date aforesaid publish to Parker or plaintiff in reference to his war service writing containing words to the following effect: ‘‘William Ranstead reported Fox to the authorities as a probable spy. A very clumsy policeman was put on to shadow Fox, who suddenly becafne ■ very careful, and did not give himself away. AVilliain R. next met Fox at Gallipoli, where Fox was engaged as a cook at headquarters. This was a position where he could get a lot of useful information. AVilliam R. reported him again, with the result that lie was shipped back to New Zealand,” meaning that plaintiff ivas of a base nnd traitorous character, and committed a crime ?—Yes. Damages on this issue were assessed at £350. Did defendant on or about 2nd July, 1925, speak and publish to J. G. AVynyard the following words: “If Fox had his rights he would have been shot twice as a spy,” this statement having reference to plaintiff’s war service?—No. Did defendant on or about 14th July, 1925, publish to John B. McKinney, in reference to the war service of plaintiff, writing containing the following words:—“AVilliam Ranstead reported Fox to the authorities as a probable spy. A very clumsy policeman was put on to shadow Fox, who .suddenly became very careful, and did not give himself away. AVilliam R. next met Fox at Gallipoli, where Fox, was engaged as a' cook at headquarteYs. This was a position where lie could get a lot of useful information. AVilliam .R. reported him again, with*tho result that he was shipped back to New Zealand,” meaning thereby that plaintiff was a base and traitorous character, and had committed a crime?—Yes. Damages were assessed at £350.

If the answer returned to/ any of the foregoing questions is “Yes,” then did defendant publish the matter complained of in pursuance of his duty to the New Zealand Co-operative Dairy Company, Ltd., and in bona fide belief of the truth thereof, and with an honest desire to protect members and creditors of the company, and to persons who had an interest or duty corresponding to that of defendant, to receive it; and is it a fact that it was not published to anyone without such interest and duty ?—No,. by majority of 10 to 2. Did he publish the matter complained of maliciously?—Yes, by a majority of 10 to 2. . AVhat damages (if any) is plaintiff entitled to recover?—£looo. Counsel for plaintiff, Mr Seymour, formally moved that judgment be entered in accordance with the jury’s verdict. Mr Northcroft said that Sir John Findlay, leading counsel for defendant, had several points to raise, and he asked that all points be reserved. The case was adjourned for further consideration.