LIBEL ACTION AGAINST JOHN NORTON

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 7079, 17 March 1910, Page 1

LIBEL ACTION AGAINST JOHN NORTON

A. E. L. BERTLING SEEKS £2OOO DAMAGES

WAS THE ZOO MISMANAGED?

Matters connected with the "Wellington Zoo M'crc again prominently beforo tlia Supreme Court yesterday, when Albert Ernest Louis Bertling, superintendent of the zoo, proceeded against John Norton, proprietor of the newspaper ,; Xeiv Zealand Truth,'' for £2OOO damages for libel. His Honor Sir Robert Stout, Chief Justice, was on the Bench. Mr F. B. Sharp and Mr H. 11. Ostler appeared for the plaintiff, the defendant being represented by Mr '[.'. M. Wilford and Mr A. Dunn.'

The special jury was composed , as follows: —Ernest Gregory Pilchcr (foreman), John Benjamin Palmer, Henry Frederick Allen, David Ernest Beaglehole, Fleming Boss, William Turiibull, Albert William Pickering, George Forsyth Gibb, John G. Rose, Arthur Leigh Hunt, William Miller, Walter Ernest Bethune. THE CASE STATED.

The plaintiff's statement alleged that the defendant falsely and maliciously printed and published in the way of his profession, in the "New Zealand Truth," certain libellous matter concerning the plaintiff, this matter appearing in the issues of the paper dated March 22nd, April 10th, Juno 12th, and June 26th, 1909. It was further contended that the words "severed his'connection" as applied to Bertling's leaving the London Zoo wero used ironically, and wore calculated to harm the plaintiff. By reason of these libellous statements, the plaintiff claimed that he had been greatly injured in his profession and reputation, and had been brought into public odium, ridicule and contempt. The statement of defence said that w> far as the words alleged to be libellous contained statements of fact, they wero true in substance and in fact; and that so far as they contained statements of opinion, they were fair and bona fide comment on a matter of public interest (the 'conduct of the Wellington'. Zoo). The articles were printed and published by the defendant as a public journalist, and were fair and bona fide comment on matter of public and national interest, and were printed and published bonafide and without malice, and for the benefit of the public, and not otherwise. The defendant denied that the words "severed his connection" were used ironically, and that the plaintiff had been in any way injured in his reputation or profession, or had sustained any damage whatever. COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF. Mr Sharp, in opening his case, said that the seriousness of the alleged libel was considerably increased by the fact that it was not a solitary case. On four different occasions libels had appeared. They were not isolated paragraphs, hut consisted ' of long articles, occupying from a column to a column and a half of the paper. The libels had prejudiced the plaintiff in the eyes of the managers of other zoos —notably those at Sydney, Brisbane, and Perth—where the plaintiff would probably have got employment if he had failed to hold his position in Wellington. After the libels, "Truth" had published what purported to be an apology. This was in no sense an apology, and only made matterß worse, by adding insult to injury. His Honor: The defence is not relying on the apology. Mr Sharp: "No, your Honor; but I will put it in. . Mr Sharp then read the libels complained of. The whole of the articles, ho said, would not be put in, as this would keep the case before'the Court for a. week. He therefore picked out the sections allegedly libellous, and emphasised the fact that to succeed the defence would have to prove that Bertling was incompetent, ignorant, stupid, and many other things. The plaintiff would also show that many charges laid with regard to various animals were utterly false. In. at least one case charges were made with respect to the treatment of an animal —an iguana—of which the zoo never had a, specimen. Statements made as to Bertling's appointment, especially with reference to a telegraphed recommendation from Mr T. E. Donne, would also be refuted by the plaintiff. Denial would also be made of allegations as to Bertling's connection with the London Zoo, where it was said he had been employed for seven years as a clerk, and only two years as a. keeper, and that he had been glad to sever his connection with the zoo. Speaking generally, Mr Sharp said that there was always a very high percentage of mortality amongst animals. in captivity, and quoted from the records of the London. Zoo in support of his statement. When Bertling first crane to Wellington to take charge of the zoo, there was a considerable amount of public enthusiasm, and many persons sent in specimens of animals, many of the specimens being decrepit and moribund.- It was a natural thing for persons with a sick animal on their hands to say. "Oh! send it to the zoo," and the keepers had to take responsibility for its death. Mr Sharp then read from various publications, notably the "Avieultural Magazine," testifying to Bertling's ability as a keeper and breeder of birds during his time as head-keeper with special charge of the birds in the London Zoo. He also read tho testimonials Bertling received from the 700 authorities, and an article from the "Daily Mail," which spoke of the zoo's great loss and New Zealand's gain, on Bertling's leaving for the Dominion with the. Emperor of Austua's chamois. NOTHING TO COMPLAIN OF. | The first witness called was the-Her. |

John Crewes, a, member of the zoological committee, and a very frequent visitor to the zoo. In his opinion,! the zoo was .in a veuy fair condition, and he saw nothing to complain of. He noticed no signs of inefficiency on tile part of (Bertling. Ho remembered the case of £ho lioness which was rejected. Ho saw it in Wirth's circus, and there was something wrong witli ■it, so that ho was glad _ it had not been accepted. If an animal died in the ar© ithey immediately read about it in tho papers, but they never heard a word when ono was born. There 'had been a steady improvement in the zoo ever since* Bertling took charge, and ho would not object to seeing him 'continue in charge. Mr Wilford: Has -the zoo not been made spick and span since this case started?—l don't know anything about ■this case. Has it not been got into order in case, of ,a visit by tho jury, for instaneo?—l hato libel cases. (Laughter). I'm not hero 'because I want to be. I was subpoenaed. Do you know whether Bertling know how to feed animals?—He fed them as I havo always seen in menageries. Do you know anything about tho feeding of animals?—Well, I have seen them fed. Can you tell me the proper food for a lion with rickets?—l know what a lion should got, but tho other matter lis ono for a medical man. (Laughter). Do you know anything about tho (eagles; were they covered with, vermin ?—I don't know. How did they come to die?—To cut these questions short, I might say that I was never present at a death, nor at the subsequent post-mortem examination. CLa.ugh.ter). A SHARP PASSAGE. Have you ever heard ißertling U6e obscene language—such as would bo punishable by gaol? Mr Ostler: I submit that is a question which may not be put, your Honor. His Honor: There is no chare© of obscenity. Mr Wilford: . But I submit that it comes under the charge of "arrogance and bumptiousness," -which we have to prove. His Honor: How can it? Bumptiousness is not obscenity. Mr Wilford: It also comes under the charge ' of incompetence. (General laughter). I .submit that it does. If la man speaks in an obscene manner to his underlings he is incompetent. His Honor: Yon should hivye anade a charge of incapacity to deal with his subordinate. Do you mean to say that lan eminent barrister who might be .guilty of obscenity would be an incompetent 'barrister? Mr Wilford: No. His Honor: Of course not; the same thing •applies' to the keeper of a. zoo. Mr Wilfoird: I submit not. I should like to nut the question. His Honor: Very well; put it, alnd Id shall tell the jury what I think. | Mr "Wilford then put the question to | the witness who said that he had never heard Bertling .use such language, and had mover had a complaint from any of the men as to their treatment by Bertling. ANIMALS HEALTHY. Alexander Milligan, a veterinary surgeon 'with twenty years' experience, said that the animals in, the zoo were in very fair condition. There had Deen a gradual improvement in the zoo since Bertling came. ' He would not tweed! from a lioness with rickets, as the progeny would have weak hindquarters. This alpplied! to all domesticated animals. He knew nothing of the feeding of animals in a zoo. THE PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE. Albert Ernest Louis Bertling, the plaintiff, superintendentt of the Wellington Zoo, said he had had a lifelong experience of animals. He joined the staff of tho London Zoo in 1897 as clerk in the office at the gardens. A .gardens clerk had to have experience of animals and had to answer all correspondence regarding the care and feeding of the animals. In case of sickness or accident, it was the clerk of the gardens who had to deal with the matter. He held this position for six years, when he was appointed head keeper, with special care of the birds. Before he got the appointment he was examined by a committee which (included the Duke of 'Bedford, Sir Harry Johnson, and eleven other well-known authorities on animals, every one of them being a. member of ■■ the Zoological Society. Under him ho had thirty keepers, with their under-keepeirs. He was headkeeper for three years, during which time he had a great deal of success, especially tin the breeding of birds. Since ho had come to Wellington, he had been instru.men.tlaT in gettin.tr £SOO worth of animals sent out hv the Duke of Bedford. The plaintiff left tho London Zoo at' the end of 1906. as there was no prospect of advancement. i At that time tho Hon. W. P. Beeves, I 'High Commissioner for New Zealand, I'applied to the superintendent of the | zoo for a man to take out "to New I Zealand some 'chamois presented by I the Emperor of Austria., and the plaintiff was appointed. He had been ap•pomted a member of the Council of the Avieultural Society and had contributed several articles to the "Avieultural Mrca-zine." He had great 'feurcess with the chamois, which were difficult animals to keep in captivit-v. and received a special bonus of dCIS Tss from,the Government. After releasing the chamois at Mount Cook he went to Kotorua as a game expert. He then found that the post of superintendent at the Wellington Zoo ws vacant, and he applied in the usual way. He did not osk Mr Donne for 'a testimonial, and he could not pay if Mr Donno ha-d forwarded one. He

had certainly not been "pitchforked into the job." He took up his duties in .Wellington in 1908,-when there were ininety-soven animals in the zoo. After he lhad been there a year there were five hundred and thirty animals,, and now there are five hundred' and fifty. Many animate bred in the zoo (have been sent away in exchange for others from various zoos. At this stage the case was adjourned •until the afternoon. THE LIONESS AND OTHERS. On resumption of the case in the afternoon, examination of Bertling was continued Dy Mr Ostler. In reply to questions regarding the lioness which was rejected by the zoo, tho witness said that she was . suffering badly from rickets. The lioness was wanted for breeding purposes, and the rickets totally unfitted it for this. "Truth'' had mentioned a hog which had died. There never had been a hog in the zoo. Mention, was also made of a leopard. The zoo never had a leopard, and he never heard of one having been offered. A Russo stag, alleged to have died of starvation, died of exhaustion and fright. Some carpenters and a photographer frightened it, so that it got over a fence seven feet six inches high, and escaped into town. A peacock died of enteritis, commonly known as cholera, which was fairly common in birds. People used to send up animals which had just been captured in a wild state, and which were ailing, and he was expected to keep them alivo and in captivity. The death-rate in the Wellington zoo compared very favourably with that in other zoos. I The witness produced a comparative statement of percentage of deaths in various zoos. These ranged from ,3P per cent, at London to 5 per cent, at Sydney, where, however., smaller animals were not counted. The percentage at Wellington was 9, far below tho average of the figures quoted, all of which were taken from official reports. Cross-examined by Air Wilford, the plaintiff stated that his statements as to his qualifications were true in every particular. He denied having illtreated the lion while he was shifting it into its new quarters. There had never been a hog in the but there had been a hog deer, and it had died. His application for the position, which was one of a hundred and' seventythree, may have arrived a day late. He did not know of any reference in his favour sent to the City Council by Mr T. E. Donne. A BIRD EXPERT.

William Henry JB'oglia, wire-worker, sa"d he had had a great deal of experience with birds, having managed the business of his father, one of the biggest bird-dealers in South Australia. While so employed he used to travel to Europe with large consignments of Australian birds, taking as many as 3000 and 4000 pairs at a time. He had seen all the big zoos, and considered himself an expert in birds. He had seen the birds in the Wellington zoo, which he visited about once a week for a year. Right along the birds had been in good condition. They were well looked after, and were attended in. the same way as he would do himself. He know a man named Grei, who put some cockatoos and monkeys into the zoo, and they had improved in condition under Bertling's care.

Tho case was adjourned at 5 p.m. This morning, at 9 o'clock, the jury will visit the zoo,' and at. 10.30 the taking of evidence will bo resumed. ...