A LIBEL ACTION.

Otago Witness, Issue 2085, 8 February 1894, Page 14

A LIBEL ACTION.

Wellington, February 5. The hearing of the libel action in which £500 is claimed, brought by Mr H. D. Bell, M.H.R., against the weekly journal Fair Play, for saying he was exhilarated by something other than his victory on the night of the election, began to-day. Sir R. Stout endeavoured to obtain a special jury, but Mr Jollicoe objected, and Mr Justice Richmond ruled that the application which was mado last Thursday was too late. The case was therefore heard by a common jury. Nine were challenged. This morning four witnesses who were called as to what meaning they attached to the paragraph, concurred that they understood it to mean that Mr Bell was under the influence of liquor. Plaintiff's evidence was a denial that he was exhilarated by liquor. Though supported by many prohibitionists he was not a teetotaler. Possibly ho had a glass of champagne "at dinner on election day, but not more. He thought he was the calmest person in the room when the result was made known. In thanking the electors he said the election had brushed aside the scum and froth of political talk — referring to what had been going on generally on the platforms and street corners. It was a perfectly proper speech,

No witnesses were called for the defence, and counsel having addressed the jury, his Honor summed up. He said with regard to the froth and scum it had been properly stated that such expressions suited the talk of men much better than it suited persons. This being so, defendant had misrepresented what the plaintiff had actually said. If the imputation of exhilaration simply meant that Mr Bell was gay and cheerful, then no harm was done ; but if it meant that he was so under the influence of liquor as to use language that was not decent, then no doubt the imputation was calculated to injure him with' his supporters belonging to the Temperance party. As to the plea of fair comment on public men, it had been ruled in all the courts of New Zealand that fair comment must be comment, and must not suggest as facts things that were untrue.

After 15 minutes' retirement the jury returned ifito court and askpd what would be the smallest amount of damages that would carry costs.

His Honor said he could not answer that question.

The jury thereupon returned a verdict for plaintiff, with £1 damages. Sir R Stout asked for costs.

His Honor said the amount was sufficient to carry costs, and as there had without doubt been a libel he would give costs on the lowest scale.