ALLEGED LIBEL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 17322, 23 May 1918, Page 4

ALLEGED LIBEL

ACTION BY SOLICITOR. (Pib United Phrss Association.) WELLINGTON, May 22. In the Supremo Court to-day, before Mr Justice Edwards, the hearing was begun of an action wherein Luther Hopkins, solicitor, claims £2000 from the proprietors ot each of the following newspapers: — Evening Post, Dominion, New Zealand limes (all of Wellington), and New, Zealand Herald (Auckland), for alleged libel contained in a telegram from Christchurch on November 30, to which the heading Solicitor Struck Off the Roll," or similar w °ras, were prefixed. Mr A. W. Blair a ? , 9* appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr M. Myers for all the detendants.

statement of claim set out that the plaintiff was a solicitor practising in Christchurch and Wellington, and that the words struck off the roll" meant that the plaintiff was unfit to carry on his practice or had been guilty of improper or unprofessional conduct. As a consequence plaintiff Had been greatly injured in his credit, profession, and reputation. I? 16 defence denied knowledge that the plaintiff was practising as a solicitor in Uiristchurch and Wellington, but admitted the publ.cation, which, however, was done without malice. It contended that the words complained of were only in the heading, and wtun read with the rest of the telegram did not bear the meaning alleged. .. defence submitted a paragraph published subsequently correcting the error, which had inadvertently occurred. Tho plaintiff said he was a barrister and solicitor, and had practised from 1905 to 1914 at Christchurch, after which he severed the partnership with the object of enlisting, but was not accepted He had done some legal work, but had previously been engaged in commercial business When ho saw the telegram complained of published he had no knowledge of the Christchurch Law Sooiety's action. It had never served him with papers, and it came as a complete surprise. He did not take any steps about the telegram till the end of February. _ He claimed that its publication had crippled his business. In crossexamination, he said he wanted to clear his reputation, and also wanted damages. He did not ask the papers to correct tho statement after it had appeared nor before lie started proceedings. Questions were put to him as to how much legal work he had done since 1914, from which it appeared that he could readily be said to be regularly practising, r 6 Ut »° partner in Christchurch lor &400. An action was now pending £1700 St aDd ° therS in Christch urch for

•^•h. ornas William Schofield (manager in Wellington for R. G. Dun uid Co.) said ho had known the plaintiff slightly for six or seven years. Wtien ho saw the telegram in. the papers he at once thought that some serious charge had been made a«amst .Hopkins, and that an action had been com menced (not then concluded) to have him struck oft' the rolls.

Ji n closed the case for the plaintiff. Mr Myers called Joseph Parker (editor of the livening Post), who explained how the error occurred. On February 28 ho heard that there had been an error in this message, and had had inserted in the newspaper a correcting paragraph. It was the invariable rule to make a correction if a mistake occurred. In his experience of 25 yeais this was the first time a newspaper had not been given an opportunity of correcting an unwitting mistake. Mi-Myers said the paragraph had been published quite innocently and without thought of malice. In spite of what Hopkins said, it was clear that he had not boon practising his profession since 1914, and therefore had not suffered professionally. 'Hie plaintiff never asked for a retraction of the statement, although he had all the facts before they were known to the papers. He uig*ed that it was a case for small damages. Mi- Blair repudiated the suggestion thai; it was the duty of a person detained to persuade a newspaper to correct an error. lie suggested that the damages should be substantial. He did not consider that the Wellington papers made such an ample apology as ehould have been given to Hopkins. His Honor said an incorrect statement had been published which was not privileged, and it would bo the duty of the jurv to award such damages as, in its opinion, would bo a reasonable recompense for the amount of damage done. The jury awarded £200, to be apportioned among the four papers at £50 each. Judgment 'was entered for the plaintiff accordingly, with costs against each defendant on the lowest scale up to the stage of the issue of the four write and for the rest as for one action for £300, tho remainder of the costs to be borne in equal shares anion" the several defendants. °