A PECULIAR LIBEL ACTION.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 786, 25 March 1887, Page 23

A PECULIAR LIBEL ACTION.

HEAVY COSTS AGAINST A PLAINTIFF. (UNITED PRESS ASSOCIATION.) Dunedin, March 22. At the Supreme Court to-day, before Mr Justice Williams and a jury, the libel action Robinson v. Bell and others was proceeded with. This was a claim for 1 50,000 damages, brought by J. W. Robinson, architect, formerly of Dunediii, but now of Wellington, against the proprietor, publisher, and printer of the Evening Star. His declaration set forth that the defendants printed and published in their newspaper the following report, under the heading “A Deserved Rebuke” :—“William Henry White, of Kensington, was charged with assaulting Joseph Wilson Robinson on the 3rd. Mr Mouat appeared for the complainant, and Mr Denn'ston for the defendant. The evidence showed that the complainant, who is an architect, accosted

a sister of the defondant at Kensington on the evening of the 29th ultimo, and having ascertained her name, forced hie company upen her. She was unwilling to carry on a conversation with him, and walked at a fast pace in order to rid herself of his company. Theairl went to the Athenaeum, and on her way back to Kensington was again accosted by the defendant, who asked her to walk along some of the by streets with him. Miss "White met a gentleman acquaintance, and complained to him of Robinson's conduot. Next morning she acquainted her brother of what had happened, and he interviewed the complainant several times for the purpose of obtaining an apology. On the last occasion (Saturday afternoon) he met complainant on the street and. informed him that unless he consented to give a written apology he would thrash him. At complainant’s request defendant went with the former to his office, and after some words had passed defendant struck him over the back and hands with a cane, the result of which had been to incapacitate

the complainant from following his profession for several days. Mr Denniston was about to address the Court for the defence when his Worship intimated that this was unnecessary, as he was fully convinced that the complainant had acted most improperly in accosting the defendant’s sister in the manner he had ; and it was a fortunate thing when young girls who were subjected to such conduct had fathers and brothers

to take their part. An assault had been committed, but he thought a penalty of Is and costs of Court would meet the case.” The plaintiff claims that that report was not an accurate, boua fide, and impartial report, but was an improper and maliciously distorted account of the proceedings, and was printed and published with a view of disparaging and degrading the plaiutiff, and of exposing him to public ridicule, hatred and contempt. That in consequence of the publication of such report the plaintiff was subjected to great annoyance and public ridicule, and wa3 molested and interfered with, and the minds of tire public were inflamed against the plaintiff. It was further alleged that the defendants published inthesaid newspaper letters headed, “A Caution to Girls,” signed “A Parent;” “Girls Beware,” signed “ Cat o’-nine-tails and “What shall we do with the dude ; ” that tho plain, tiff alleges that he i 3 referred to in the said letter in contemptible and malicious terms, and with a view of inducing the public to molest the plaintiff, and to subject him to annoyance and rough treatment, and of bringing the plaintiff into public hatred and contempt. It is alleged that in consequence of the publication of the letters the plaintiff was to great annoyance and public ridicule, aud was molested and was interfered with and wa3 subjected to malicious persecution, and had sevoral charges and proceedings preferred against him by suudry persons. He further alleged that the defen-

dants published, concerning some designs exhibited by plaintiff at Christchurch Exhibition, words which were “not a fair and honest criticism of the designs therein referred to, but are a malicious and unfair abuseoftheplaintiff’s works, andimputetothe plaintiff want of competent qualification and ability in his said profession, and are intended to be part of the malicious persecution of the plaintiff by the defendants, which had been carried on by the defendants during the greater part of the latter months of the year 18S3, for the purpose of degrading the plaintiff and exposing him to public rid : cule, hatred, and contempt, and of injuring him in his said profession, and in his character and reputation. Finally the declaration alleges that in consequence of the mental anxiety produced by the pnblication of the aforesaid libels, the plaintiff’s health was undermined, and he was confined to his bed and unable to attend to his professional business for the space of 21 months, and is only just recovered from his illness. That the aforesaid libels have caused the plaintiff great and irreparable injury, and they are malicious and untrue. Wherefore he claims £50,000 as damages. The defence admitted all the publications, but said that the reports were fair and impartial, and denied that the plaintiff was referred to in the letters.

Mr D. M. Stuart opened for the plaintiff, and then called the plaintiff, who gave eviclence at great length. He denied that ho had first addressed the girl White. He also denied that the Magistratehad made the comments attributed to him. In crossexamination he said he had been on several occasions threatened to be horsewhipped, and he had been pelted with stones and bricks, and he had been “ clodded.” He did not remember tho occasion of being smothered with flour. Dra Robe ts and Davies were examined as to the plaintiff being an out-door patient at the Hospital for nervousness, and M. Cohen, associate editor of the Star, as to the publication of the letters, which, he admitted, he thought referred to the plaintiff. Mr Haggitt called for the defence Mr Carew, R.M., who heard the assault case, and reporters to prove the accuracy of the report as to the assault case. Tho jury after three hours’ consideration returned with a verdict for the defendants, and the Judge entered it accordingly with costs and disbursements as per scale. The costs on the amount claimed would appear to be £1262 10s.