THE SUMMING UP.

Maoriland Worker, Volume 5, Issue 177, 24 June 1914, Page 5

THE SUMMING UP.

Mr. Justice Edwards, in summing up, said that Parliament had set up an Arbitration system. Unfortunately there had been differences at Huntlyj and the miners there had preferred striking to the legal method of adjusting differences. The suppositious worker —for thero was , no evidence that he was a worker —who wrote the notes from Huntly containing the words complained! of, had referred to the plaintiff in opprobious terms, and the paper had) adopted them and made them its own. As for the meaning of the word scab, it was unquestionably defamatory; indeed, there was no more offensive term that one man could apply to another, unless it was to be called "an organiser of scabs," as the pkintiifii had been in this case. The defendants, moreover, had 1 themselves defined the word, and though the definition had bee a made light of by Mr. Donnelly, there can be no doubt that it was open to the jury to attach to the terra the meaning given by the paper itself —that when the paper.applied the epithet they meant it-in the sense previously defined in its columns. Mr. Donnelly had properly said that the questions of libel and the amount cf damages were for the jury, but the jury must be guided by the facts, for the law of libel aesuinedi certain facts, and in this case the facts were that the defendants had rsed a word which they themselves had defined as odious. There could bo

no question that if the word was capable of tho meaning the defendants had given it, or of any defamatory moaning, a libel had been published cf and concerning tho plaintiff. The minor was undoubtedly entitled to tho protection of the law just as much as any other member of the community, a doctor or a lawyer ft>l example, and he should certainly be entitled to damages for any words, the publication of which damaged him in his calling and exposed him to hatred, ridicule or contompt. Aβ for Mr. Donnelly's reference to the failure of plaintiff to appear in the box, it was doubtful if plaintiff could have thrown more light on tho question of dninages than had {.lroady been plr.eod' before the jury. Clearly tho plaintiff had suffered no financial lofs, but lm had been written \of in the official of tho Fcilera- ' tion of Labour as "an organiser of scabs," and this exposnd him to tho opprobrium of his fellows, arid might prove damaging to him in tho future. The Federation of Labour was a body which not merely interfered as between I employer and employed in certain mii dustrics, but appeared to arrogate to itself the right to hold up all industries if occasion required. Mr. Donnelly had told them that damages should not be problematical, but in a sense all damage? were really problematical. Tho amount was a question for the jury, find Mr. Reed had fully explained to them the difference between substantial (or exemplary) and vindictive dnmngee. In a well-known caso tried at Chrisitchurch in which tho plaintiff was a gentleman who occupied a very high position, and who now occupied a much higher one, the jury awarded the full amount claimed, and it was undoubtedly open to the jury on that occasion to do so. Damages should not be withheld merely because it wae difficult to estimate tlio amount in money with \ accuracy. Comment had been made bn the omission of the plaintiff to ask for an apology before issuing the writ, but it was competent for the defendants themselves to offer an apology in mitigation of damages, and they had not done so. It was for the jury to take ; nto consideration all these matters, and to decide as to what redress the plaintiff was entitled. The jury retired to consider their verdict at 4.3 p.m., and after being absent nearly an hour, returned to court, when the foreman intimated to the Judge that they were unanimous in holding that the article was libellous, but were not unanimous as to the amounb of damages. Hie Honour informed tho jury that after they had deliberated for three hours, a three-fourths verdict could be accepted. Tho jury again retired. After the jury had gone, Mr. Justice Edwards informed Mr. Donnelly that the foreman had intimated to him unasked that nine were of one way of thinking as to the amount of the damages, while three held a different view. At 6 p.m. the jury were allowed an hour for dinner. They were locked up again at 7 o'clock, and at 7.30 returned with their verdict, when tho following dialogue ensued: — The Registrar: Gentlemen of the jury, have you agreed upon your verdict? The Foreman: Yes, sir. The Registrar: How say, you, gentlemen Do you find for the plaintiff ci for the defendant? The Foreman : For. the defendant. Several Jurors (in a whisper): The plaintiff! The plaintiff! The Foreman: The plaintiff, sir. The Registrar: What amount of damages do you award the plaintiff The Foreman (again in a whisper): £1000. Several jurymen then repeated the amount loud enough for counsel to hear it. On Mr. Reed's application, ' his Honour then entered up judgment for the amount, with costs on the highest scale, and fee for second counsel.