LIBELLING A BANK.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXXV, Issue 11231, 21 March 1908, Page 1 (Supplement)

LIBELLING A BANK.

.- ■ — * **■ ■• . £5000 DAMAGES CLAIMED. Purr's Bank, Limited, succeeded in obtaining £6000. damages from the proprietors of Vanity Fair for a libel pub lisheel in their issue of. June 5, 1907, concerning the bank. The defendants were Messrs Clinton and Harris, proprietors of Vanity) Fair, and Messrs W. H. Smith and Son, the printers. An apology was accepted from Messrs Smith and Son. - . Opening the case to the jury, Mr Rufus Isaacs said the libel was of a particularly grave and sensational character. M r Clinton, a solicitor, and Mr Harris were the proprietors, of Vanity Fair. Mr Harris edited" the paper. The article complained of dealt with a pamphlet issued by a Mr Horsfall, who, so far back as 1890 was a customer of .the Alliance Bank, which subsequently was amalgamated with Parr's Bank. About 1891 Mr Horsfall owed the Alii, ance Ba-nk £8450, and proceedings were taken to enforce security. Ultimately the amount was paid off and the transaction was at an end. 1 For a series of years Parr's Bank had been assailed by Mr Horsfall in a manner which in the end became ludicrous, and all his publications had been treated with contempt. Eventually, in June. 1907, Vanity Fair took upon their shoul'ders for some reason to state that they - vouched for the accuracy of these wild and grave charges. The libel in Vanity Fair was headed 'Parr's Bank Scandal," and said: "It- is now somo years since there was brought under our notice certain grave charges which Mr W. B. Horsfall, originally a customer of the Alliance Bank, now absorbed by Parr's Bank, has made against the managers of ; both institutions. At the time the documents upon which these charges were based received a thorough examination from us and others, whose assistance we sought in endeavoring to unravel the somewhat involved' story. The result of our pains in the matter is that we cam© to the conclusion that Mr Horsfall had been most shamefully treated, and we urge him to use every means to obtain justice for the wrongs he has .suffered. . . . H is a startling story. . . . The truth of the statements made have not been challenged." Immediately this article was brought to the attention of the bank they took action; Messrs Smith took steps to prevent further circulation of the paper aud apologised; Messrs Clinton and Harria took a little longer,' but in the end had to, admit that the statements were absolutely unjustifiable and unfounded, and thereupon, some months afterwards', they apologised. He asked for substantial damages. Evidence was given bearing out Mr Rnfus Isaacs' statement. For the defence no witness was called, and Mr Matthews said Messrs Clinton and Harris were prepared to make an even more humble apology. When the jury had awarded £5000 damages against Messrs Clinton and Harris, and judgment had been entered accordingly, with costs, a sky of execution was allowed on payment into court of £1000. ..