ACTION FOR LIBEL

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 11296, 23 August 1922, Page 5

ACTION FOR LIBEL

£l5O DAMAGES AWARDED SUIT AGAINST INSURANCE MAGAZINE PROPRIETORS. “AN AVERAGE ADJUSTER.” Because of the publication of a certain paragraph in the magazine, “Accountancy, Commerce and Insurance,’ * a.n action for libel wa 3 heard, yesterday, in the-Supreme Court, before His Honour Mr Justice Salraond, and a jury, of whom Mr A. B. Johnston was elected foreman. THE CLAIM. The plaintiff in the case was Victor Maurice Braund, of Wellington, an average adjuster, fotr whom Mr M. Myers appeared; the defendants being Accountancy and Educational Publications, Ltd., who were represented by Mr W. Perry. The amount claimed as damages was £6OO, and the grounds of libel referred to the alleged! false and malicious publication in the magazine referred to of the following word 9 on June 30th, 1921“ Short delivery. —We have just had the misfortune of reading a report by a so-called adjuster stating that short delivery is always ia liability under the theft and pillage clause. His fee is £2 25.” Plaintiff contended that tho word 6 referred to were intended by the defendants to refer to himself, and were so understood by the magazine’s readers; and that the meaning conveyed by tho words was that plaintiff, although publicly practising as an average adjuster, was incompetent to .so practise; and that thus, in accepting fees from the publio for opinions on insurance matters, ho was committing a fraud. Plaintiff, therefore, he said, was much injured in his credit and reputation, and for that Toason claimed the damages asked for. ONLY A VINDICATION.

In opening his case for the plaintiff, Mr Myers maintained that his client had no desire to make money by the action but solely to vindicate his reputation. To do tnat and before a jury it was necessary to name a substantial amount of damages for the plaintiff, who was by profession an insurance adjuster; and .he wag one. of the very few who specialised in marine insurance adjustments. Plaintiff was the only marine adjuster in Wellington, said Mr Myers, and an adjuster waa usually called in to decide as to the effect of policy provisions. To plead that any harm done by such a statement was unintentional would not, said Mr Myers, be sufficient excuse if harm resulted and. _if harm, did result then the fact of hbel was clearly established. From the very fact, suggested Mr Myers, that tho magazine was published m Wellington, the inference naturally pointed to the plaintiff; and, although defendants had been given every opportunity to correct the publio impressions to that effect, they had .not done so although plaintiff had pointed out to’ them in a courteous letter that the imputations referred to appbed to himself. When eventually a lawyers letter had been sent to them on the subject, the reply elicited was that 1 uo way oould the paragraph convey that Mr Braund -was the person aimed at.” A OOMPLIOATED BUSINESS'. Victor Maurice Braund, the plaintiff under examination, having deposed to being in business aa a fire tod marine insurance adjuster smee 19UV. went on to deal with the. complicated calculations involved in adjustments of fire and marine insurance and pillage claims. On June 10th, he said, he gave a decision to the defendant company in writing and for it charged a fee of £2 2s; and he knew of no other person at whom the paragraph oould have been aimed except himself. Several witnesses gave evidence as to having read the paragraph in toe magazine, and as to associating toe plaintiff with its application. THE DEFENCE. For the defence, Mr Perry denied the intention to give to toe words complained of the interpretation placed upon thorn by t(he plaintiff, a® to his incompetency. The article® in the magazine, hi© said, were written to give educational information to insurance clerks; and the bona fides and intention of the writer .of the paragraph should receive consideration. Names were never mentioned by insurance clerks, who brought the magazine any kind of difficult problem in insurance. Before the publication of this particular paragraph, said counsel, a certain student had com© to Hammond and placed a decision before him, for which the fee was £3 3s; but, to save any feeling in the matter, Hammond changed his fee and reduced it to £2 2s. Since that time a report had been supplied by Braund, which, he took it, was. the report to which the paragraph alluded. Had an expression of regret or apology been published in the magazine an relation to Braund, then the other adjusters would have claimed a similar vindication. A CONTRIBUTOR ONLY. Ernest Edward Hammond, insurance manager of the British Traders’ and Royal Insurance Company, deposed that, as a contributor to the magazine, lie wrote the paragraph' forming the cause of the present action. Questions relating to short delivery and to pillage, he said, frequently formed the •subject of problems submitted to him by insurance clerks; and it must have been, said witness, in some such way that the paragraph was suggested to his mind. As to the expression, “so-called adjuster,” used by him, witness submitted that his only reason for so expressing himself was the scarcity of adjusters, it not being generally * known that there were such persons. Frederick George Cray, who said he had been a manager for the Royal Insurance Company for 37 years, and 15 years manager of the local branch, stated that he did not know of any marine adjusters in Wellington, but he did know of assessors. An adjuster, as the term was understood by witness, meant a person qualified to belong to the Adjusters’ Association of London. Arthur Henry Clerke, chief clerk in the office of the Insurance Office of Australasia, deposed to # having discussed the problem of liability for short delivery and pillage with Hammond only a few days prior to the publication of the journal in June, 1921, when no name was mentioned by him and no fee stated in connection with the matter quoted. “NONE IN WELLINGTON. * * Arthur Stanley Clarke, for six years with the Insurance Company of Canton, stated that the* only adjusters he knew of were two in Dunedin and one in Auckland. He did not know of any such in Wellington. diaries Henry Dick, secretary of Accountancy Publications, deposed to the customary procedure in vogue in tho office of the magazine, as to the correction of mamvaecripts and proofs. Mr Z. O. Gibbins, secretary of the N.Z. Marine Underwriters’ Association, said that, until the present case

was brought, he did not know that the plaintiff claimed to be an adjuster. THE MAN WHO READS. His Honour, in summing up, told the jury there were just two questions they should ask themselves: (1) Whether the statement complained of was defamatory, and (2) whether it referred to the plaintiff. The jury must consider whether the words used were an implication that plaintiff was “unfit for hfe* job.’’ The statement in the magazine was that someone had given an erroneous opinion upon a certain phase of insurance matters. Not the meaning intended .to be conveyed by the man who wrote, but the meaning understood by the man who reads, said TTia Honour, was the point the jury must take up. The latter end of the sentence, and the way in which it was set forth, said His Honour, left little reasonable doubt that the remark was made with the intention to be defamatory to some person not stated. The company’s contention was, said His Honour, that their reference was to some other adjuster and not the plaintiff; but the real quest! oO was not whether the company intended to refer to the plaintiff, but whether the reference was connected with plaintiff by the business men who were readers of the magazine, and in jvhose minds the plaintiff might be prejudiced by it. His Honour then emphasised the significance of the fact that, when told that the words were believed to prejudice the plaintiff, the company had declined to publish any satisfactory explanation which would put the plaintiff right in the minds of the public; and the company’s reasons Tor so declining seemed to His Honour to be quite inadequate ones. His Honour said he could see no proper reasorf why a reputable newspaper should not have been glad of the opportunity to explain to its readers and pul the matter right once and for all. As to the question of damages, His Honour reminded the jury that, for any harm done to his character and reputation, the plaintiff was entitled to a reasonable and proper sum by way of compensation. VERDICT FOR PLAINTIFF. The jury returned after only a few minutes’ interval with a verdict for the plaintiff for £l5O. His Honour gave judgment accordingly, with costs according to scale.