ACTION FOR LIBEL.

Otago Witness, Issue 3148, 15 July 1914, Page 48

ACTION FOR LIBEL.

FAIRBAIRN v. OTAGO DAILY TIMES. VERDICT FOR PLAINTIFF. (Feom Ouk Own CoREsaPONDiWT.) CHRISTCHURCH, July 9. The hearing of the action in which Andrew Fairbairn, of Christchurch, sued the Otago Daily Times Company for £IOOO damages for alleged libel, was resumed in the Supreme Court this morning, before Mr Justice Sim and a special jury of 12. Sir John Findlay,' I\.C., with Air Wright, appeared for the plaintiff, and Air W. C. AlacGregor, with him Air C. Stringer, for the defendants. The cross-examination of the plaintiff, which had been interrupted by the adjournment on the previous day, was continued. [Unfortunately owing to pressure on our space we are unable to give a report of the cross-examination, which lasted for the greater part of the sitting,, or of the evidence of the other witnesses called.] July 10. When the court resumed it was announced that the following issues had been framed. (1) —Docs the article of October 15, 1912, charge the members of the Cost of LivingCommission, or any of them, with having dishonestly suppressed part of the evidence of the witnesses Bowyer and Jameson in the official report of such evidence ? (2) —lf so, is that charge time? (3—ls the said article a libel on the plaintiff ? (4) —Doe.s the letter signed William R. Gordon accuse the plaintiff .of having accepted the office of commissioner for some improper purpose? , (5) If so, is that assertion true? (6) —ls the said letter a libel on the plaintiff? (7) —Does the letter signed “ Merchant ” allege that the plaintiff was appointed a commissioner on account of the -business relations between himself and the Hon. Tiros, Mackenzie ?, (8) —Was the plaintiff appointed a commissioner for that 'reason? (9) -Is the said letter a libel on the plaintiff? (10) Does the letter signed “L. R. W.” allege that the whole of the said commission was appointed for the purpose of enabling- the plaintiff to attack his business competitors and to further the interests of his own firm?

(11) —Was the said commission appointed for that purpose? (12) Is the said letter a libel on the plaintiff ? (13) What damage, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover from the defendant in respect of (a) his first cause of action, (b) his second cause of action, (e) his third cause of action, (d) his fourth cause of action.

Counsel having addressed the jury, and his Honor having summed up, The jury retired at 12.30 p.m., and, returned to court at 2.10 p.m. with the following answers to the issues;—

First issue: Yes. Second: No. Third: Yes. Fourth: Yes. Fifth: No. Sixth: Yes. Seventh; Yes. Eighth: No. Ninth: Yes. Tenth: Yes. Eleventh; No. Twelfth: Yes. Thirteenth: (a), £250; (b), £250; (c), £100; (cl), £250. Judgment was entered for plaintiff on the motion of Sir John Findlay for £BSO, with costs according to scale, and, witnesses’ expenses and disbursements, to be fixed by the registrar.