DAMAGES FOR LIBEL.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XL, Issue 13170, 2 September 1913, Page 7

DAMAGES FOR LIBEL.

(Per Press Association.)

OfIRISTCHURCH, last night. ._ At the Supreme Court, before a common' jury of I twelve, the action John Alexander Newell v. the Lyttelton Times Company was heard. Plaintiff claimed £1000 damages for libel arising out of an article published m the Star of- May 17, reflecting oh plaintiff m his capacity as gaol suregon. The statement of defence admitted that the statements m. the article were untrue, but pleaded that publications of an apology had been offered, together with £11, which plaintiff had refused. Defendants had brought £100 into Court as sufficient to satisfy the claim.

The jury retired for 30 minutes, and on returning announced a verdict for plaintiff for £300 damages. Judgment with costs as per scale was entered accordingly, but costs for second counsel were not allowed.

The action Alexander Adair Johnston] v. the Lyttelton Times Company was heard before a common jury of twelve. Plaintiff claimed £1000 damages for libel contained m a letter to the editor of the Lyttelton Times, and published m that newspaper on June 29. The statement of claim set out that plaintiff was a Fellow of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, and that, as a result of criticisms of the Animals' Home maintained by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, he took over the management under conditions. The arrangement under which he was to control the home were published m .the Lyttelton Times on July 23, and later aletter signed "Veritas" was published, stating that dogs were destroyed bymeans of strychnine. Plaintiff said the statements^ contained m the letter implied that "lie had wantonly and cruelly destroyed dogs, and that he was guilty of culpable ignorance m the exercise of his professional uuties. The statement of defence was . that the defendant company had offered to publish art apology, and to pay his costs, and that the letter had been published without any malice or attempt to do injury. After a retirement of 50 minutes the jury returned with a verdict awarding plaintiff £10 damages. , Judgment was entered accordingly, with costs.