Claim for 420,000

NZ Truth, Issue 1029, 15 August 1925, Page 7

Claim for £20,000

Mrs. Alice Maud Ward Sues "Truth"

Hearing of Action is Deferred

A great amount of interest was aroused by the ' magnitude of the figure • claimed m a libel action brought against "Truth" m the Supreme , Court, Wellington, this week, by a Dannevirke lady, Alice Maud Ward. The article complained of was published m "Truth" as Jong ago as , February' of last year. Mrs. Ward now claims £20,000.

Tlie action, Ward v. "Truth," set down for hearing before a Judge and jury of twelve m the Wellington Supreme Court on-. Thursday was adjourned until next sittings of the Court m Wellington. The plaintiff was Alice Maud Ward, wife or Louis Wellington Ward, surveyor, of Dannevirke, and her claim, was against • Henry Renata Clayton, publisher, and Frederick J. Earle, managing editor of "New Zealand Truth." Mr. E. Gibbard, of Dannevirke, represented the plaintiff, while the defendants were represented by Mr. M. Myers, K.C., with him Mr. A. Dunn. "Fair and Accurate." It .was alleged m the statement of claim that the defendant newspaper, which had an extensive circulation throughout. New Zealand, published or caused to bf published, on February 2, 1924. m a report of a Magistrate's Court action m Dannevirke m which plaintiff; was' bound over to Keep the peace divers false statements and defamatory statements concerning the plaintiff. The article complained of was embodied m the statement of claim. It was maintained that the publication was "false and malicious" and that "so much of the said publication as professes to be an account of judicial proceedings is not a fair and accurate report." • Plaintiff therefore claimed to recover from the defendants and each of them, the sum of £10,000 _ by way of damages; the costs of , the action and "such further and other relief m the premises as may be just." The defence was. a denial that the article was false and defamatory or that its publication was false and malicious. It was .contended that the article, consisted m part of a report . of certain judicial proceedings, and in' part of comment on the said proceedings, and on the plaintiff's behavior m connection therewith and m Court, and on her conduct generally, as shown during the Hearing. In. so far as the article was a report of the proceedings it was a fair and accurate report: m so far as it was comment, it was fair and reasonable. If it was lield that the words m the first three introductory paragraphs of the' article were not comment but involved statements of fact, then the same were true m substance and m fact. When Mr. Justice MacGregor took the Bench to proceed with the hearing he mentioned that an amended statement of defence had been filed that morning. This statement contained references to various acts on the part of plaintiff m .the past which defendants considered provided justification for the article m dispute. Mr. Myers said it was true that an amended statement had been filed, but he understood that plaintiff's counsel and the plaintiff were cognisant of the

various points raised m pleading justification of the article., There was no occasion for him to have filed the statement at all, r but he wished to act with the utmost, fairness m the dispute, and not give counsel for plaintiff occasion to say that the matters had not previously been referre.d, to. At the same time, he (Mr. Myers) was sure the facts were known to iplaintiff and her counsel. Mr. Gibbard, on being referred to, said that he had had no . previous notion of certain of the points raised m the amended statement, and would

require an adjournment at least till the afternoon. If a further adjournment was required he would ask for it then. His Honor pointed out that his own movements on circuit were bound by time-table, and he wished to be able to finish the case if he once started on it. Another thing, he could riot Keep the jurors hanging about indefinitely. If plaintiff's counsel -was not prepared to proceed .it once, he was not likely to be any move ready to do so m the afternoon. Particulars Supplied. Mr. Myers again pointed .out that he had not been bound to file the amended statement, and hal done so purely m fairness to ,the other side. Counsel for plaintiff would have been justified m asking for particulars, but as he had not done so, the defence had supplied them, being actuated by a spirit of fairness. His Honor agreed with this, "but," lie added, "you have filed it, Mr. Myers." He thought plaintiff was entitled to an adjournment, as had the defence as amended been notified eai'lier, she might have found it necessary to biring more witnesses. In view of the time limit, and also m view of the amended statement, he considered it his duty to .grant the adjournment, and it would be until next sittings of the Supreme Court m Wellington. . A brief discussion on the question of costs of the adjournment was ended by plaintiff's counsel intimating that he did not ask for costs.