NEWSPAPERS SUED

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 22995, 24 March 1938, Page 14

NEWSPAPERS SUED

DEFENDANTS' CASE ADDRESSES BY COUNSEL DEFAMATION DENIED Evidence for the defence was heard yesterday in two' related Supremo Court actions, in which James William Taylor, of Auckland, insurance adjuster, claims i-'oOOO from "Wilson and Horton, Limited, proprietors of the New Zealand Herald, and £SOOO from New Zealand Newspapers, Limited, proprietors of the Auckland Star, as damages for alleged libel contained in reports of a Supreme Court action, Johnson versus Davis, heard on November 4 and 5 last.

The actions are being heard before Mr. Justice Fair and a jury. Mr. A. Hall Skelton appears for the plaintiff; Mr. A. H. Johnstone, K.C., and Mr. R. P. Towle for New Zealand Newspapers, Limited, and Mr. H. P. Richmond for Wilson nnd Horton, Limited. Reporting Commended

Thomas Benjamin Slipper, barrister and solicitor, cross-examined by Mr. Johnstone, said that solicitors took up claims on behalf of persons injured in motor accidents. He himself would bo prepared to take up any meritorious case if he were assured that ho would get out-of-pocket costs. William Noble, barrister and solicitor, gave evidence regarding part of the proceedings in Hurlstone v. Steadman, in which he had appeared for the plaintiff.

To Mr. Johnstone, witness said he had never had to make complaints regarding reports in newspapers, although he had appeared almost daily in tho Courts for eight years.

Mr. Richmond: Do you know Mr. Inglis, a reporter of tho Herald? Witness: Yes. From long observation I can say that he may have his equal as a Court reporter in New Zealand, but ho is second to none in accuracy.

Has there been any suggestioff that ho ever falsifies or perverts reports?— I would not believe it if you told it to me. This concluded the case for the plaintiff. Case for the Star Mr. Johnstone, opening the case for New Zealand Newspapers, Limited, said that the libels alleged against the Star were contained in two short and apparently innocuous passages of news contained in the report of a motor accident case. The Star proprietary admitted their publication, but submitted (1) that the words, in the ordinary use of language, were not defamatory at all or held the plaintiff up to hatred, contempt or ridicule; (2) that they were not capable of the meanings assigned to them by the plaintiff; (3) that, whether they were defamatory or not, they were used on a privileged occasion and formed part of a fair and accurate report of judicial proceedings; and (4) that no damage had been suffered by the plaintiff. The jury should ask themselves whether the words necessarily meant that the plaintiff was guilty of theft and incompetence.

Amount of the Claim The present case became of importance largely because of the enormity of the claim, said counsel. Such a sum as £IO,OOO, which the plaintiff sought to obtain from the two newspapers, could properly be claimed only for a gross libel published under circumstances calling for punitive treatment. There was no possible ground in this case for a claim on that scale. After explaining the functions of an, insurance adjuster, counsel remarked ! that in connection with lawsuits the term, as applied to Taylor, was an entire misnomer. For his services in Johnson v. Davis he was to receive 10 per cent of the award if an action succeeded. This system was open to the gravest objection, because it tended to interfere with the administration of justice in the Courts. Counsel quoted authorities to show that the practice had been condemned ever since the days of Henry VIII., and that the promotion of suits by persons who had nothing to do with them wag regarded as tending to lead to grave abuses. In Paterson v. Waygood, counsel continued, there had been some evidence regarding Taylor, but Taylor had n.ot brought the case forward in the present proceedings because he wanted to csnceal from the jury Mr. Justice Callan's comments upon his activities as a professional exploiter of claims.

Brief Passages The brief passage in the Star's report which formed the first cause of action did not defame Taylor, nor did it suggest that Taylor had done anything improper. Regarding the second cause of action, counsel contended that the Star took a wise course in not reporting evidence heard in the absence of the jury, since it was not part of the action and the Judge had disallowed any further reference to the subject matter. The first passage in the Star's report, although condensed, was not unfair as far as it went, and the same contention regarding the second passage was not denied by the plaintiff. If the report was fair and accurate, the plaintin could not succeed unless he proved that the newspaper was actuated by an improper motive. The Star had no grudge against Taylor and did not even know him. Editor's Evidence Counsel described as "novel and startling" tke proposition that because shareholders in the two newspapers held shares in insurance companies, the newspapers had entered into a conspiracy and had ordered their staffs to attack Taylor. "It is a base suggestion," he declared, "and one which no British jury woujd accept for a moment without complete and cogent proof, but no attempt has been made to prove it. The man who made the suggestion has not had the courage to go into the witness-box and support it. 1 shall have more to say on that subject later." Frederick Arthur Clarke, managingeditor of the Auckland fc»tar, stated in evidence that the directors did not interfere in the slightest degree with the policy of the paper. No special instructions were issued to reporters, who were assigned to particular jobs and were left to use tneir own discretion within the limits of space. No instructions regarding Taylor had been issued to reporters by himself or anyone else. He was first aware of Taylor's existence when he received a letter from him concerning the; present case. Offer to Publish Statement

Mr. Johnstone put in a letter from Taylor dated 11 days after tho conclusion of tho case Johnson v. Davis, alleging libel and threatening legal proceedings v in default of a settlement. He also produced subsequent correspondence, in which Taylor rejected an invitation to him by the witness to call and discuss an offer to publish any reasonable statement he might care to make. To Mr. Hall Skelton, the witness said that the manfiging-director, Sir Cecil Leys, defined the policy of the paper only in consultation with him. John Shaw, reporter on the Auckland Star, stated that he reported the hearing in Johnson v. Davis. He had never received instructions as to how he should'do reporting:. He had never been, instructed to malte a special feature of Taylor, who had been a stranger to him until the present proceedings.

Mr. Richmond, opening the case for Wilson and Horton, Limited, said that the claim for £IO,OOO was built up, not on any fncts that were really relevant or on faults committed by the two newspapers, but on facts that appealed to class instinct by suggesting that a number of people had, by New Zealand standards, large fortunes. Mr. Hall Skelton objected to the introduction of this line of argument, on the ground that lie had told the jury to disregard the wealth of the defendants.

Mr. Richmond: I am still entitled to make the comment. His Honor, to Mr. "Richmond: You are proceeding on the assumption that Mr. Hall Skelton did attempt to influence the jury, although he had disclaimed it.

Mr. Richmond produced correspondence between Tavlor and the Herald. In his first letter, dated 11 days after the action, said counsel, Taylor did not specify what particulars affecting him had been left out of the passage constituting bis first cause of action. It was remarkable that on this point, in his letter to the Star, lie based his complaint on the Herald report and expressed ' reliance on the Herald's accuracy and fairness.

Paper's Offer Refused In regard to the second passage, no complaint of misreporting was made, but only that evidence heard in the absence of the jury was not reported. Admittedly the procedure of the Court in hearing the evidence was not an ordinary one, but the Herald reporter, who was acquainted with the Evidence Act, took the right course in omitting the matter Replying to Taylor's letter, the Herald denied tho alleged inaccuracy, justified its omission of tho evidence referred to, and offered to arrange for the publication of a suitable statement on tho matters at issue. Taylor wrote refusing the offer. If Taylor had approached the paper on the day after the caso and had had any reasonable explanation published, any possible stigma would have been removed. Results of Other Oaiies In his second letter Taylpr said he could prove that he had suffered loss of business, but he had not apjwared to tell the Court what his business was. Certain people had said he was an adjuster, but the jury did not know whether he had ever earned £IOO a year in his life. It was known that ho had settled one accident claim, and it would bo proved that ho had promoted eight jury cases, in which an aggregate of about £BOOO was claimed. In six of these the verdict was for the defendant, and in the remaining two a total of only about £.'500 was recovered. Regarding the first cause'of action, counsel said that the Hkuat.d report was perfectly fair and accurate, and was based on shorthand notes, which had been preserved. Tho only words that could have been added were the plaintiff Johnson's statement that ho received the sum he signed for. It was perfectly obvious that he did not receive the,whole sum of £144 18s, because out of it he had to pay Taylor's 10 per cent and medical and other expenses. The report as published explained the transaction and contained iio relleetion whatever upon Taj'lor. It had not been proved that Taylor had done any harm to the insurance companies, but it appeared that he had done harm to his clients.

Reporter's Testimony " In tho pleadings," continued Mr. Richmond, " there is an alleged inference that ho was afraid to face crossexamination on his relations with Johnson. Ho is afraid to face cross-examina-tion now." Taylor, added counsel, alleged that he had suffered loss of business through the alleged libels. It might be suggested, on the contrary, that he had ruined his own business, because juries had distrusted him and his clients had lost their cases and had had to pay costs.

George Frost Jnglis, reporter on the Herald. gav«» evidence that he had reported six Supreme Court cases in which Taylor had been mentioned. No attempt had ever been made by proprietors or insurance interests to influence him in regard to his reports. Tho idea was inconceivable. Ho had regarded references to Taylor's activities in accident cases as of importance as affecting tho administration of justice, especially in view of tho Judge's comments in Paterson v. Waygood. He had cut down references to Taylor in his reports to the minimum necessary to make the various points clear. The hearing was adjourned until this morning.