LIBEL ACTION FAILS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20039, 4 March 1927, Page 12

LIBEL ACTION FAILS.

CLAIM BY JUSTICE OF PEACE. STATEMENTS SUBSTANTIALLY TRUE. (Per United Press Association ' HAMILTON, March 3. Considerable interest was aroused by a libel action heard in the Supreme Court to-day before Mr Justice Stringer and a jury of 12, in which a resident of Auckland, John Henry Hannan, J.P., an elderly man, sued Wm. Blomfield, printer and publisher of the New Zealand Observer, for £3OO damages for an alleged libel contained in an article published in the Observer. Plaintiff was represented by Mr A. Blair (Wellington) and Mr Munro (Auckland), and defendant by Mr A. H. Johnstone and Mr G. P. Finlay (Auckland). The statement of claim set out that plaintiff was a Justice of the Peace and a visiting justice of His Majesty’s Prison at Auckland. In the issue of the Observer on June 16, 1926, defendant falsely and maliciously printed and published a statement to the effect that Hannan had appeared in court on several occasions, once as the defendant in a case /when a conviction was recorded against him. It was only because of the interest taken in his behalf by several prominent Auckland citizens that he was permitted to retain his commission as a justice of the peace. Towards the end of 1916, Hannan, a Justice of the Peace and a visiting justice to his Majesty s Gaol, was convicted of letting premises to a certain person having reasonable grounds for the suspicion that they were to be used as a house of ill-fame, and also with permitting the continuous occupation of such premises, having reasonable grounds for the suspicion that they were used as a house of ill-fame. A fine of £5 was inflicted on Hannan, who had always taken a great interest in church and Sunday school work. Surely the article added, the Auckand Justices of the Peace Association might serve a useful purpose by discussing the question whether Hannan was a fit and proper person to bo allowed to remain on the list of Justices. It was also stated in the Observer’s article that Hannan had not only been convicted once, but was called upon on one occasion by the late Mr C. G. Kettle, S.M., to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt of court. By the words complained of, it was alleged this meant that plaintiff had been guilty of letting a house while suspecting it to be used as a house of illfame, that Hannan was a hypocrite, and had been guilty of dishonourable conduct, and, accordingly, was unfit to hold office as a justice of the peace, and that he ought to be discharged therefrom. Plaintiff’s statement alleged that as a result of the publication Hannan’s credit and reputation had been brought into public scandal, hatred, and contempt. Plaintiff did not go into the box. Mr Finlay, for the defence, described the action as the most remarkable libel action he had ever heard of. Here was a man suing for heavy damages for libel when he would not oven go into the witness box to substantiate his claim, nor submit himself to cross-examination. It was true that Hannan was convicted and fined £5 and costs for allowing a man to remain in occupation of a house, knowing that it was being used as a house ot ill-fame, although he was not actually convicted of letting it, knowing that it was tcT be used for such a purpose, burely that was an outstanding case of Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Hannan, said Mr Finlay was notorious in the courts of Auckland, and had a long litigious histoHis Honor asked the jury to consider whether the difference between being convicted of allowing premises to occunied as a house of ill-fame, and letting them knowingly for purposes was wide enough to go to the toot of the matter. So long as the comment was not prompted by malice, and was fair, it was permissible. The evidence supported the statement that Hannan suffered in regard to the production of evidence m a court of justice and told an untruth, but this did not matter so much as whether a man who helped to administer justice should resort to such practices This with the other matters substantially proved 'against him, were sufficient cause for the iurv to consider whether a man of this calibre was capable of administering justice with that fairness and level-headed-ness expected of those entrusted with such work. All men in public positions were subject to comment in the press, and if the iury found the published statements substantially true then fair comment was jury found that no libel had been committed, and brought in a verdict for defendant with costs and disbursements.