Libel Action.

Pahiatua Herald, Volume IX, Issue 1197, 21 February 1902, Page 2

Libel Action.

Braund v. “Herald.”

Plaintiff Awarded LSO.

Before Mr Justice Williams yesterday, Victor Maurice Braund, journalist, sought to recover £‘7so damages from William Henry Hawkins and Alexander Baillie and Co., proprietors and publishers of the Pahiatua Herald, on account of remarks published in that paper on 22nd November. 1901, having reference to the plaintiff. Mr Gully appeared for the plaintiff and Ur. Findlay for the defendants.

Because of alleged inaccuracies in a report telegraphed to the Herald by Braund, concerning a meeting of creditors in the estate of Miss Baker (subsequently Mrs Prosser), in wbich was contained an assertion as to the value of certain securities in the estate held by one Grabam (a Palliatua slorekeeper), the defendants published in tbeir newspaper a leading article on the subject, wbich—in the words of Mr Gully—“ contained most of its sting in its tail, ju3t like the postscript to a lady’s letter.” The words of the alleged libel were the following ;—“ We might say that the above report (meaning the report forewarded to the said newspaper by Braund) wa3 wired us by Mr V. Braund, of Wellington, whom we looked upon as a pressman. There is an unwritten law,which guides the conduct of the pressmen, viz., that information telegraphed one to the other is absolutely true, and may be relied upon. We, therefore, accepted Mr Braund’s telegraphed report of the Baker case as reliable, and published it without question. What Mr Braund’s object was in thus misleading us we neither know nor care, but we take this opportunity of publishing his unprofessional conduct, and we advise him not to try the same tactics with us in the future. In fact we shall refuse to accept any messages from him in future.”

Mr Gully, in opening, spoke about the damage done to his client s reputation, and spoke scathingly of the plea put forward in defence that the article complained of was written ’ hurriedly. Counsel hoped that the jury would give the defendants the same opportunity of repenting at leisure that was generally accorded to people who married in haste. He would prove that the telegram complained of by the newspaper was not misleading, as alleged. Victor Maurice Braund, accoun tant. deposed that be was engaged - in journalistic work. He acted for several creditors in the estate of Miss Baker, who was formerly proprietress of the Post Office Hotel, Pahiatua. He attended a meeting at the office of the official Assignee in Wellington presided over by Mr Chennels, Deputy Assignee at Mastertoc. After the meeting he sent to the Pahiatua Herald the telegram which led up to the present proceedings. It was substantially an accurate report. There was a discrepancy between the newspaper and those witness sent by telegram, Witness had no interest to make him send anything misleading in reference to tlie estate. Believed that the attack on him had prejudicially affected him. , Knew of one particular instance, i Did a lot of bis business in the Wairarapa, where the paper circulated. 1 After the telegram was published on the Gth November, witness had no , communication from the proprietors , with reference to it. The next he s knew about it was tbe article on the I 10th November, wbich was the ground of the present case. '• To Dr. Findlay: Miss Baker was | his client in the case of bankruptcy. i Went into her affairs with her. In . July of last year witness wished to i see the books of Graham, a storei keeper of I’ahiatua, in connecticn with Miss Baker's affairs. Threat- > ened him with a action in Cham--1 bers to make him show his books. It was on witness’ recommendation that Miss Baker filed her petition in bankruptcy. In subsequent stages witness had disagreements with Graham over an interest charge Grabam had made against Miss Baker. If Witness had expressed himself as being hostile to Graham it was only professionally ; had nothing personal against him. The telegram he sent to the Herald was the first communication he had ever sent to that paper. He was not asked to send it; sent it “collect ” at his own risk. Did not say at the meeting of creditors that tbj book-debts about which the telegram was sent were of small value. Would swear that. Believed Mr Chennels said something to that effect. Did not see why he should have included that statement in the telegram to the Herald. Had frequently said that Graham was holding more security than his debt amounted to. That was a fact. He based his statement on the amount of book-debts held by Graham, Considered that the article in the Herald was an assertion that witnoss was a dishonest journalist. Considered his reputation as an accountant also was injured, Consi dered be made 1' 150 per year out of the Wairurapa Standard alone as contributor and agent. When witness ran the Guardian newspaper in Wellington he never attacked anyone’s private character. lie-examined : Graham had what might be vulgarly tinned •• an edge on him. It was a common thing for occasional correspondents to send contributions without payment, with a view to getting a pormaii eut engagement as correspondent. John I.iddell Kelly, editor of tbe N.X. I inns, su'd lie bad been over 90 j years in journalism. Had read the article complained of. The inti rpre ration he put on it was that in ilic first place it was written with tbe - object of injuring Braund. It was a most unusual thing for a newspaper to expose the name of a correspondent ; the paper always assumed the responsibility. Tbe prominence of a leading artie'■ e.' - was in this i instance unusual ; it was customary to make 00-r a in the same i columns aa tli ’ o n li the errors occurred. In the artiolii coiiipb'ifed 1 of there was in witness's iq . I an insinuation that Braund was ] untruthful. To Dr Findlay Ho would say 1 that if anyono mad the article as a,i whole lie would come to the conclusion that Braund was accused not of unprofessional conduct, but of sending a somewhat hazy report. Thu would not bo any groat injury te « correspondent's character. Mr | Biauuda reputation as editor of the i

Guardian was that of a somewhat sensational writer, given to raking up matters connected with public men. The last part of the article was not justified by the first part. Be-examined: Once edited tbe Auckland Obsrrrrr. That paper had an excellent reputation of the same kind as the Guardian s.

■James Ashcroft, Official Assignee, of Wellington district, said be was a journalist “out of harness.’ Had read the article complained of. It seemed to him that it would militate against Braund’s employment as a reporter or as an accountant. Cross examined : The unfortunate part of the article was that the public would probably skip the figures at the start of the article, and read tbe attack at the end. which wa3 not justified by the beginning. After evidence had been called as to tlie despatch of the telegram, George Gee, manager of the National Bank, deposed that Braund was a skilled accountant. Considered that the article reflected on Braunds accuracy as a whole. Cross-examined: Would himself take do notice of the article.

Wm. B. Cbeanells, Deputy-Official Assignee at Masterton, said he had read the account telegraphed by Braund. It was a fairly accurate report so far as the figures were involved. It was a fact that an arrangement for a compromise bad been made by Grabam m connection with the estate of Miss Baker. Cross-examined: The book-debts held by Graham as security had realised £'l 9s Gd so far; no summonses had been issued vet. The sum mentioned was exclusive of a debt of £ll due by the film of Young and Co., which was known all through to be good. A circular issued by Braund left it to be inferrel that Graham was holding a security greatly in excess of £oo for a debt of that sum. The debts held as secant y were of small actual value, however —and though Braund’s figures were correct bis deductiou was misleading to anyone not acquainted with the values.

To His Honor : The account was a correct one of what took place at tbe meeting, for there the figures quoted by Braund were before them. George Thomas London, one of the proprietors of the Sun newspaper, gave evidence that the impression made on him by tbe article complained of was that be was fortunate in bavrng ceased certain negotiations with Braund.

Cross-examined : His opinion was founded on the tail of the article. No evidence was called for the defence.

Mr Gully addressed the jury, and said that it was extraordinary tbit no evidence should be called by tbe defence after it bad refused to make any apology for tbe publication of tbe article. Tbe contention of the newspaper that Mr Graham had been libelled by tbe telegram was unsupported altogether. After a most offensive plea of untruth on tbe part of Braund made by the defendants, tbe latter went on to assert that tbe article complained of was wholly true. The evidence called disproved that contention altogether. It was an aggravation of the original libel to Lave justified it and then not to call any evidence of justification. The case was one for exemplary damages. Dr Findlay told the jury that the report sent by Braund to the Heeald was not a fair report; i: was sent in a spirit of Tindicuveness against Graham, who had interfered with Braund in a professional way. There was an open feud between the two. What could have been Braund’s motive in sending that telegram to a district in which Graham lived: to a paper to which he had never previously contributed ? His motive in sending that telegram was to support his own previous contention as to the amount of security held by Graham. It was astutely drawn up so as to lead the people of Pahiatua to believe that Graham had been keeping Lis hands upon £192 of property when he bad only a debt of £BO odd against the estate to which the security belonged. To convey that impression was the reason of Braund s philanthropy in sending the telegram to the Herald. The newspaper had no intention of doing Braund any harm when it published tbe correction, and counsel asked tbe jury if it was going to fill tbe pockets of Braund out of this little newspaper, and so encourage the bringing of a large number of libel actions on trifling grounds. His Honor directed tbe jury that beyond a doubt the article alleged unprofessional conduct. If. after i considering the case in all its bearings. tbe jury decided that tbere bad been libellous statements male, it would award temperate damages, such a? in its opinion were reasonable in the circumstances of tbe case.

Tbe jury, after an absence of three quarters of an hour, returned to Court with a verdict for plaintiff £SO damages. His Honor intimated that costs would be as per scale, with disbursements and witnesses' expenses to be iixid by the Registrar.