LARNACH V. NEW ZEALAND HERAID.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 4912, 22 January 1889, Page 2

LARNACH V. NEW ZEALAND HERAID.

(By Telegraph, j

WELLINGTON. Jan. 21

The only evidence called for the defence in Larnaoh v. New Zealand Herald was that of Mr Q. M. Reid, who wrote the first article complained of, and Mr W. Berry, editor of the New Zealand Herald , who wrote the second. They deposed that they wrote without malice, and in the public interest, on what they supposed to be the true facts of the case. An apology had been published in the paper, and also tendered privately by telegram to Mr Larnach, when it was ascertained that the facts were wrong. Mr Gully asked His Honour to direct the jury that the articles were justified in the circumstances which the writers had before them, but Mr Justice Richmond said that the latter were bound to assure themselves that the facts wore correct before commenting on them. Counsel having addressed the jury briefly, His Honour summed up, pointing out that the facts upon which comment was based by public writers must bo established on reasonable evidence. He quoted several cases, including Bryce v. Rusden, to show the state of the law, and said that it had been admitted that there was error in the,facts. The jury, after retiring for fifty minutes, returned and

asked what sum would carry costs. His Honour said that the costs were now at the discretion of the Judge. The jury then gave a verdict for plaintiff, damages £SOO. Costs were allowed on the middle scale.