ALLEGED LIBEL.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XLV, Issue 12090, 26 June 1920, Page 4

ALLEGED LIBEL.

MAYOR v NEWSPAPER. (Prom Our Own Correspondent/. Taihape, June 26 At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday afternoon before Mr W Wilson, S.M., Artffhr John Jobliu, Mayor of Taihape, sned the Taihupa Times Company for £2OO damages for alleged libel, said to have been contained in a. letter to the paper by a correspondent. The letter referred to stated that the correspondent, whose wife and family, besides himself, were laid up with influenza, had sent a message to the Mayor for assistance and had received a reply stating that no assistance was available. Plaintiff stated in his evidence that the statements contained in the letter were untrue, and had affected him detrimentally in his public and private capacity. He had not received any message and denied that any message had been received at his bouse. He would have been satisfied had an apology been mad® when it was asked lor by his solicitors. The) defendant company pleaded that the statements were fair comment on a public man, aud in his evidence the editor of the Taihape Times stated that in view of all th® circumstances ha would feel justified in again publishing a similar letter*. He hgd endeavoured to ascertain if the statements contained in the letter were correct, and being assured that they were correct he published them. During forty years’ experience as a journalist he had never previously had to defend an action of the kind. For the defence, Mr Loughnan contended that what would b® slander in the case of a private individual would not be so in relation to a Mayor or a Town Councillor in their public capacity. He quoted previous judgments ia support of hi® contention and maintained that whatever a man was entitled to say with respect to a private individual he was entitled to say a little more in respect to a public man. To b® slanderous, stateements should disentitle » person to hold office. Where the words used merely impute unsuitability to boll office without imputing dishonesty or misconduct, such words were not actionable. It was impossible to give a definition of “public interest, ” but intentions had to be considered He contended that in one case it was allowed that the character of a public man was more or less public property. If an imputation that a man was a drunfc.ard and incompetent to hold office was not slander, he maintained that there was nothing in the letter pub-lished'-which was actionable.

For the plaintiff Mr Hussey contended that an assertion of fact was not comment at all. A true critic never indulged in personalities* but confined himself to the subject matter of the case entirely. Comment to be fair must be based on facta, and as an untrue statement had apparently been made, he submitted that there cuold be no question that the words were actionable. A defamatory statement was one which had a tendency to diminish good opinion or cause hatred or contempt of a person, and had a tendency to excite against a person the feelings of other persons. A charge of unfeeling conduct bad been heir) to be defamatory, and it was libellous to charge a person with ingratitude if the facts on which the case were based were not borne out. A definite charge had been made against hia client, and the imputation was that he took no part in the epidemic of 1918. The plea of justification was supported by this imputation only. The reputation of his client had suffered, and therein entered the question of punitive damages. Decision was reserved.