ALLEGED LIBEL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21569, 15 February 1932, Page 8

ALLEGED LIBEL

ACTION AGAINST NEWSPAPER £IOOO DAMAGES CLAIMED (Peg United Press Association.) WELLINGTON, February 13. The action in which John Joseph M'Grath, barrister and solicitor, sought to recover £IOOO damages from the Wellington Publishing Company, Ltd., for an alleged libel, was continued in the Supreme Court to-day before the Chief Justice (Mr Justice Myers). Counsel for plaintiff said the reference to plaintiff complained of had been given considerable prominence in the Dominion. It had been separated from the report of the remainder of the case. To the ordinary person it would appear from the' heading that there had been a serious impropriety on the part of the solicitor. The headings, said counsel, were grossly unfair and defamatory. Counsel read to the court the statement which had been made by Mr E. Page, S.M., to both counsel subsequent to the incident in court. Mr Page said it was clear to him that at no time had he in words said to M'Grath that he should withdraw his remark.

Johu Joseph M'Grath, plaintiff, said neither the magistrate nor anyone else had told him to withdraw a remark, nor had he been rebuked. He had at once withdrawn it, however. By the publication of the report he suffered very great annoyance. Witness did not get the impression that the magistrate wished him to withdraw the remark. Two of his clients had said to him since that it did not seem wise to quarrel with the pqlice or a magistrate. Plaintiff said he did not advertise in the Dominion. On an occasion last year an agent of the Dominion called with reference to advertising. The advertising man told M'Grath he thought he was fdolish to quarrel with a newspaper. His Honor at this stage intimated to counsel for the defendant that there was still an opportunity of meeting the position to a very considerable extent. He was not expressing any opinion whether the paragraph was defamatory or not, but would have no hesitation in saying that as a matter of law it was capable of defamatory meaning. Counsel for the defence said the evidence would seek to show that the report was a fair and accurate one of the proceedings; that the headings in this particular case were part of the report, and must be read with it. The evidence would be that, not only did the magistrate say the remark was an improper one, but he also stated that it should be withdrawn. The reporter would say that he took the remarks down at the time in shorthand, and counsel submitted that even if there were slight inaccuracies, it would be shown from the authorities that a libfel did not necessarily occur. It would be submitted further that the words “ improper ” and “ rebuke ” bore quite innocent meanings, and did not intend to libel in any way the plaintiff. Sub-inspector Lopdell, who was conducting the prosecution when the incident occurred, detailed the circumstance. “Mr Page, who was presiding, said: ‘Your statement is improper, Mr M'Grath, and you should withdraw it.’ I was on my feet alongside M'Grath, and he said something which seemed to begin with ‘ It is notorious.’ I thought he was going to interpose something, and I said; ‘I object,’ and the magistrate said: “I said your statement was an improper one.’ M'Grath said: ‘Very well, your Worship, I withdraw it.’ Witness thought that the magistrate had spoken with emphasis. Dudley M. Pilcher said he had reported the incident in court as it occurred. Witness considered that M'Grath had been rebuked.

Charles Westwood Earle, editor of the Dominion, denied any .element of malice in the reporting incident. Non-advertis-ing by plaintiff had nothing to do with it.

His Honor assured witness that he did not for one moment believe, and would be sorry to believe, that such was the state of affairs in the present case. Counsel for the defence said the headings, for the purpose of privilege, were part of the report, and they were justified by what the report contained. Replying to his Honor counsel said that if the paper had been asked to'do it, it would have been only too glad to have published some “ gentlemanly statement,” with a view to easing the situation, but whether the reference to plaintiff was withdrawn or not. he considered a rebuke had been given. His Honor: I am going to accept the magistrate’s statement. I cannot help thinking it is correct. I believe it was Lopdell who said M'Grath should withdraw it.

Counsel said his main submission was that it was a ’substantially fair account of a little breeze which took place, and if the remark had been made to a police officer, imputing partiality to him, then it was a matter of public interest, whether it was published or not. This was an attack on a public officer, and it should be reported.

His Honor thought that not sufficient had been reported to convey the whole atmosphere of the incident. If the whole incident had been reported the sting would have been taken out of it as far as M'Grath is concerned. The paper had refrained from telling the public that M'Grath had acted as a gentleman. Counsel for plaintiff said the headings could only be justified if they were fair comment, and the report itself only if it was fair and accurate. After further argument along these lines his Honor intimated that he would reserve judgment.