“PETREL” LIBEL ACTION

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXIV, Issue 4977, 29 May 1903, Page 3

“PETREL” LIBEL ACTION

VERDICT FOR PLAINTIFFS

A FARTHING DAMAGES AWARDED Yesterday Air Justice Edwards and a common jury of twelve heard the action brought by J. Staples and Co., Limited, brewers, AVellington, against AVright and Carman, printers, Feachurs!ton street, to recover £IOOO damages for libel stated to bo contained in a publication called the '"Petrel” of the 23rd of March last. Air Skorrctt appeared for the plaintiffs and Messrs Alorison and Atkinson for the defendants.

Tlio following jury was cmpannolled after both sides had exhausted their challenges;—Thomas Robert Brougham street (foreman); Albert Ernest Davis, (it, Nairn street; William Redmond, 53, AVobb street; Joseph Radio Bingham, SO, Abel Smith, street; David Campbell, 15, Green street; Herbert Dix, 31, Austin street; Alfred Joseph Kirk 30 Waterloo avenue; William Jver 5, Wrighb street; Charles Henry Dement, 10. Dock street; William Bradbury, Kilbirnio; Joseph Thos. Hunter, 2, Wallace street; Frederick Archer, 03, Ingestro street. Air Skorrctt, in opening tho case, explained that the action was brought to recover £IOOO damages for libel. The plaintiffs were a well-known browing firm carrying on a very extensive business and employing a large number of hands. Tho defendants were the owners of a newspaper called the ‘'Petrel,” which was published at intervals and usually preceded a licensing election. As its name implied, it was a ‘‘Stormy Petrel,” tho forerunner of dirty weather. Counsel went on to explain tho legal definition of a libel, and ho said ho would invito tho jury to read tho publication and ask thorn to consider whether there was any doubt whatever but, to put it mildly, that its tendency was to bring the plaintiff company into hatred, contempt and ridicule. Tho article or poem was headed, “ALay of tiic Trade.” It could have been more appropriately termed, “A Eio of the Trade.” Counsel proceeded to read tho alleged libel as follows: A DAY OF THE TRADE.

Staples and Co. wero brewers. And they plied a roaring trade; A hundred tied house tenants Their sovereign will obeyed; “Sell our beer,” said they, despite the law, "And likewise pay our rent: “And if you don’t, well out you go! Ami out they surely wont.

Staples and Co. the brewers Had a covenant with death To be his zealous agents As long as they had breath; They served their master faithfully. And did his work so well. That the track of their beer-carts round the town AVas marked like the road to hell.

Staples and Co. wore brewers. And they raked tho money in; AVhat matter to them that it bore the stain Of misery and sin. Of the tears of widow nnd orphan. Of tho harlot’s hitter shame? Staples and Co. were brewers. So they took it all tho same.

Staples and Co. the brewers Behold with growing dread The quickly growing notion In the Christian voter s head That a trade which did tho devil s work And bowed to him alone. Was one to which by Christians No quarter should be shown.

Staples and Co. tho brewers. To check this dire increase. Offered two Christian churches Five hundred pounds apiece— A noble, free-will offering. Fragrant of beer and blood— And the churches’ leaders took it, For they saw that it was good!

Staples and Co. the brewers. For once were badly sold. For the Christian voter’s conscience AVas untainted by their gold; A thousand pounds they paid away To buy a peAple’s soul. And they lost in town two thousand votes At the next option poll.

Staples and Co. the brewers Had a still more deadly fright. For gallant little Newtown rose And smote them in her might; Three thousand votes against the trade. Out of five thousand polled. Three thousand set their brother s soul Above the brewer’s gold.

Staples and Co. the brewers Then took tho case to law To get the verdict set asido U T pon a trivial flaw; Fairly beaten on the merits. Their cavil won in court. And they triumphed. Let thorn triumph. For their triumph will bo short.

Staples and Co. the brewers! God’s hand cannot be stayed By the mean and tricky quibbles Of a selfish, cruel trade. Fiercer Ho flames in His people s hearts For the triumph that you scored. And they’ll hew the trade in pieces like Agag before the Lord.

Having read the article ho desired to call their attention to the impression it would leave upon their winds. Was it not about a-s violent, abusive and injurious an attack as was ever made upon a business? He proposed to divide his observations into three headings, and he would deal first with tho second and third versos. They would observe that this article or poem did not refer to tho browing trade generally It referred to Staples and Co., Ltd.,- and to no other brewers in Wellington or throughout tho colony—to a particular business and a particular business only. it commenced each verse with the words “Staples and C 0.,” and tho subsequent linos dealt only with their actions. What did these second and third versos say ? That the plaintiffs conducted an evil ilnd disreputable business, that .they “had a covenant with death” to bo his faithful servant, and did their duty cheerfully and gleefully! “That the track of their beor-carts round tho town was marked like the road to hell.” Lot them read that in conjunction with the first verse —that they instructed their tenants to soil their beer despite the law, and if they did not, out they would go. Lot thorn read the whole poem together, and what did it mean? That plaintiffs encouraged all sorts of evils and abuses in connection with their business —immoderate and excessive drink —and that their business was wicked, evil and disreputable. Lot them look at the third verse, which said that their earnings and profits were tho profits of misery and sin, made out of the proceeds of harlots and prostitutes, and bv ruining husbands and fathers. That was what tho third verso said in so many words. The jury had to consider whether it was not a disgraceful and injurious publication. If anyone amongst them wore to sit down and write of a particular business the most injurious and abusive expressions ho could find could ho have reached the height of scurrility and abuse this poem hacf reached? Tho defendants did not justify the article at all; they did not venture to come into Lonrt and point out a single act of misconduct in the plaintiff company’s business; they did not venture to say. “It is not a respectable business and it is not honestly ennrlueted.” How did they justify it? They told the Court in their defence that it did not refer to Staples and Co. in par-

ticular, but to tho brewing trade in general—that they .simply wanted a little poetic discussion on the < vils of the drink traffic generally. Was there any reference in tho whole ot the verses to tho drink traffic generally ? In law it was impossible to libel a particular class, bit if a person chose to pick out a particular person or business and use offensive epithets towards that particular person or business, then there was a cause of action. In this case the defendants picked out Staphs and Co. and said their bnsidess was evil, disreputable and disgraceful. Another defence set np was that tho publication wa.s fair comment. It could not bo doubted that everyone was entitled to their opinions upon tho liquor traffic generally. No one complained of tliat. Tho plaintiffs did not, but what they did complain of wa.s that tho defendants had no right to pick out a particular publican or brewer and charge him with opprobrious, indecent, disgraceful conduct. W hat did fair comment moan ? It meant that a person might attack any particular evil, but ho must comment reasonably and in tho public interest. Ho must comment without malice and malignant motives. Lot tho jury read tho publication and say whether any man could have written it as a. fair comment on the liquor traffic generally. No doubt tho dealings of a brewer with, a publican might bo a subject ot fair comment. This did not refer to their relations generally, but alleged .that in tho caiso of Staples and Go. it was an evil and disreputable business. Ho bad dealt with what was tho most serious aspect of tins libel. Ho would direct their* a.ttontioij, to tho first verse, and ask them to say what it meant. Did it not mean that they said to their tenants ‘‘ Sell our beer in defiance of tlio Licensing Act, and if you don’t, out you go?” Ho would put it to them that such was the meaning any' ordinary, intelligent reader would take out of it. Tho jury' wore nob to consider this poem as a literary puzzle. They were to consider the effect it would have on their minds if they read it as they would read their newspaper, not as if they wore to sit down to dissect, scrutinise and analyse it as a lawyer would if ho sat down to discover tho real moaning of the document. Tho question was, What would tho ordinary, intelligent reader take it to moan? Tho first four lines referred to tied houses—they have “a hundred tied-house tenants,” and went on —■

“Sell our beer despite tlio law. And likewise pay our rent; And if you don’t, well out you go! And out they surely went.”

If the defendants wanted to refer to tho buying of beer from Staples, why did they not put it “Buy our beer, despite tho law?” It was “Sell our beer.” Ho put this view to tho jury, and was content to stand or fall by tho view they would take. Tho defence roliodl upon the omission of an inverted comma before tho word ‘‘ despite.” There were two ways of putting inverted commas, ono by putting them down tho margin of the quotation, as wao tho custom with tho Loudon “Times.” In tho other place they were simply put at the beginning and end of the quotation. Tho author was not in any way responsible for tho commas or punctuation. That was a matter for tho printer. Tho grammatical construction in tho present caso was “Sell our beer despite tho law, and if you don’t, out you.go.” Tuo defendants said there were no inverted commas before tho word “ despite,” and that, therefore, it meant “ Sell our boor, and if you don’t, out you go.” A drowning man clutched at a straw, and tho defendants were clutching at this omission of the invested commas in the same way. What reader ever noticed inverted commas in a case of this sort? Did they not look at tho general effect, of tho language, and put their own sonso in it. if such an argument as his learned friends put forward were to hold good, a man by an ingenious omission of punctuation might commit tho grossest slanders, libels and defamations with impunity. Tho' Judge had ruled on a preliminary point that , tho words in tho first verso meant that tho plaintiffs bound their tenants to buy their beer despite the law. Ho, however, would submit that he was entitled to tho jury’s construction, and ho was prepared to abide by it. Of course, if tho Court ruled otherwise, thoro was an end of the matter as far as that verso was concerned. With regard to the third part of his argument tho gift of £IOOO to the churches—if it were alono tho plaintiffs would not have minded about it, but as they came to complain of tho second and third verses, they had introduced that matter, so that tho jury might seo what class of article this was. Not content with imputing to tho plaintiff company all tho crimes in tho calendar, tho defendants even blamed them for their virtues—for thoir generosity to those two churches. They stated that the £IOOO was “fragrant of beer and blood.” No doubt some gentlemen could not understand generosity of that kind, or of any kind, and sought to impute to others ig- ' noble motives. Some people would impute to an act, no matter how honest, disreputable and mean motives. The plaintiffs might very wolf have passed over this reference, and would have done so, only for the circumstance that they came there to complain of tho second and third verses. Their caso was that tho publication was a gross and unjustifiable attack on tho company, designed to bring it and its business into contempt at election, time. It was published just on the eve of tho licensing election—.two days beforehand —when no reply could be vouchsafed, and was calculated to prejudice tho minds of the electors. The jury would bo told that this was a rich limited liability company trying to uso its resources to crush this paper. Every attempt would ho made by his learned friends to excite tho antipathy of tho jury against tho and in favour of this paper. It was true the plaintiffs wore a limited company, and a rich one, but he was onlv asking for it tho same measure of justice they would give to tho meanest person standing before them. They would bo told of tho evils of tied houses. That had nothing to do with the question. Tho plaintiffs did tie their houses, so did spirit merchants and others. It was all done in the way of trade, and they did not protend, like the prohibitionists, ■ to bo better than thoir neighbours. Did it not strike them as somewhat peculiar that they should have a prohibition journal standing up for tho publicans P Did it not remind them of the story of the wolf and the lamb? “Come under my wing and I’ll protect you” the wolf said, and when tho lamb came, “I’ll gobble yon up and you’ll make a delicious meal” said tho wolf. The jury would bo told that this was an attempt to gag and stifle tho press. There was no attempt to interfere with the liberty of respectable journalism. They had in thus colony a fearless, independent, and respectable press. This action was brought as a public duty to put a chock, if possible, upon tho licentious abuse of public journals, to put a stop to the persist cart campaign of abuse and v:lihcation. No respectable journal would put stuff of this kind in its columns. It

was left to ephemeral, electioneering rags like the “Petrel.” In Australia there wero journals from whom, the character of no man was safe, if he happened to coffer from tho writer or editor. Were tho jury going to allow a sat of newspapers like that to grow up in this colony? A great deal would be said to draw their attention away from the matter they' had to consider. What they had to consider was' —taking tho whole poem, did they think it was a [air. honest, reasonable comment on the conduct of tho liquor trade generally, or a malignant and nmwarra.ntrd attack upon tho business of a respectable brewer, Staples and Co., Limited? A copy of the publication was then handed in and the incorporation of the plaintiff company' admitted. Thomas Kennedy Alacdonald, auctioneer, was the first witness called by Air Skerrott, and deposed to having read tho publication in tlio ‘Tetrol” of tho 23rd Alaroh last, entitled “A Day of tho Trade.” As an ordinary' reader, ho formed an opinion of tho fiijsb and following verses. Witness was asked the opinion he formed of tho last four linos of tho first verso taken in conjunction with the four preceding lines. Air Alorison objected to the question. Either the words had a plain, meaning or a meaning given by innuendo. _lf they had a plain meaning the question could not bo asked. If they convoyed a meaning by innuendo Ills learned friend must lay tho foundation by evidence of special circumstances that pointed to that particular meaning. Air Skorrctt did not think ho could sayvery much more on tho point than ho had said directly'in addressing tlio jury. Ho submitted that tho matter must bo for tho jury. The test was not tho literal or grammatical meaning of the language, but tho published moaning—■ what an ordinary reader would understand by reading it. His Honor did not think tho question should go to the jury. Unless the plaintiffs could show special circumstances it would nob be admissible. Air Skerrott intimated that ho would not call any further evidence. He then proceeded to close the plaintiffs’ case, and dwelt upon tho fact that, no apology had been offered by the defendants. Ho went on to say that unless .such conduct as the defendants haa been guilty of were chocked, they would havo 'tho gravest abuses, and no man’s character, whether rich or poor, would bo safe from contumely. Plaintiffs were indifferent as to’ damages. All they asked of the jury was to mark their sense of the publication of the. libel and of the conduct of the defendants iu justifying it. and. to award only such sum as would in future act as a. deterrent to. tlio proprietors of this paper and other similar publications from indulging in unbridled abuse and unbridled defamation. ~ Tho defence did not call any evidence. Air Alorison, in tho course of a lengthy address said that when, people played a, game they had chances to take, and yvlion they went into an election they ought to be just as prepared to take hard knocks in that game, tho same as in football or any other game.- In this case what they had to consider was not a man, but a. company, which had neither body nor soul, and tho sole object of which was to make money. The shareholders wero entirely different from the legal fiction called a company. The shareholders had not thought this publication a reflection on them. The action was brought by tho legal abstraction called a company to recover damages for libel. What the company could bring an action for libel for was for the publication of something which directly affected its pecuniary interests. If the defendants had written that tho company sold bad 'beer instead ot good beer, as ho believed it himself, there might ho some cause of complaint, but they did nothing of the sort. Therefore, he submitted this action was absurd. His learned friend admitted that the houses were tied, and ho did not say there was anything wrong in that, but the position was that for years they had been trying to regulate the liquor traffic, and whenever they succeeded iu one direction they-found it wanted to bo regulated in 'another. There had teen a distinct wave of opinion against tied houses, and this brewery, with all its tied houses, might bo taken as typical of the liquor industry iu tho AVellington beer business. Counsel proceeded to narrate the circumstances of tho last licensing election, and referred to tho publication in question as a piece of election doggerel which ho would venture to say had not turned one single vote. Tho moaning of the fust verso clearly was, iu spite of all Air Skorrett had told them, that the plaintiffs owned a largo number of tied houses, and that notwithstanding the provisions of the law against tied houses. Did they suppose that if tho publication had appeared in tho “Post” or tho “Times” the least notice would have been taken of it? The real cause of the action was that the pamphlet was printed by Mr Wright, a member of tho Reform Committee. The third verso simply chaffed tho company about the gifts to tho church. What had the company to do with tho church ? It had neither a body to be burned nor a soul to be saved. Defendants had not accused the plaintiffs of brewing bad beer, of inciting their tenants to break tho law, of carrying on their business different from any other brewery business in tho colony. They had merely said what was perfectly justifiable and proper comment on tho brewing trade, coupled with the names of Staples and'Co. If the jury gave one farthing damages they would bo striking a serious blow at the right in a public cause to canvass, on a public occasion, the right to reform in regard to drink or anything else. Ho trusted they would treat tho actioif as one that ought never to havo been brought into Court.

His Honor, in summing up, said the company complained as "to the first verso that it meant it compelled its tenants to sell its beer in .contravention of the licensing laws. The law casts upon the Judge the duty of saying whether the words as printed’ and published were capable of the meaning attributed to them, and he had to tell them that in his opinion these words in the first verse were nob capable of the moaning alleged by the plaintiff company. That did not mean that the action did not allege other matters against the company, and it was for the jury to say whether they were fair comment? Did they apply to the plaintiff company, or. were they meant for the brewing trade generally? If they reflected upon the plaintiff company, they were defamatory, and as such actionable. They would observe that each verse began with “Staples and Co.” Mr M orison had not explained why they selected Staples—why they did not select Macarthy, or Speight, or Manning. He did not suppose it damaged Staples and Co.’s business. It was a. lawful trade, and people conducting it respectably had a right, to bo protected. If the verses wore a general,comment on the brewing trade generally, and did not fix a particular stigma upon a particular company, they wore not libellous, hut if a particular stigma was east upon this company, then it was entitled to damages, which the jury could assess as they thought proper.

Tlio jury retired, and after fifteen minutes’ deliberation found ?• for plaintiffs, with ono farthing dama_Mr Skerrott applied for costs, and Mr Morison opposed. . or , v His Honor, in allowing twenty guineas costs to cover everything except disbursements, said bo thought tho action was properly brought. Mr Alorison had stated that tho jury took the view that the action ought nob to havo been brought as this publication took place at election tune. He should certainly disagree with that meaning, and it was evident tho jury did not aorco with it, or they would have found a verdict for tho defendants. He could not say it was proper for any person, under tho guise of commenting on any particular trade, to say that all that had been said against that particular trade or person was tho supposed evils of tho trade generally. . He must say that ho thought a tradesman or person engaged in business had a right no brino- an action in circumstances of the kind? Ho could not help thinking that the action was properly brought. At tho sumo time, ho thought it was a pity tho action was not settled, as re mi<dit havo boon, without loss to either party. It was a question of adopting a suggestion from a person who, did not care twopence about tho matter, and who was in a position to speak with authority on it.