“FULLER v. THE TRIAD.”

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXVI, Issue 92, 22 August 1913, Page 3

“FULLER v. THE TRIAD.”

VERDICT FOR DEFENDANT. In the case at Auckland m which John Fuller claimed £5Ol damages foi an alleged libel appearing in the “Triad.” .Plaintiff gave evidence of ids career as a vocalist, describing a recent tour in Australia. Witness explained what occurred in the interview between Baeyertz and himself in Wellington in April, and plaintiff said his attitude would depend on the apology in “The Triad,” Mr Baeyertz replied in a very precise manner: “There will be no apology.” The action for damages followed. Mr McGregor; How does your singing compare now with earlier times? Plaintiff: Much better. Sir John Findlay: Will this article injure you in your professional engagements ? Plaintiff: Certainly, to tell the public that my voice is like a pig’s whistle. Sir John Findlay: To write in a bantering tone. Plaintiff (indignantly): Bantering! bantering! It is the most malicious I have ever read in my life. Sir John Findlay: Well, you are the most sensitive musician I have ever met. His Honor: Do you suggest that you will lose anything at all by reason ok the publication ? Plaintiff; If the article has been widely read, certainly. His Honor: You have been singing at your own theatres for live or ton years and do you say that your engagements will suffer? Plaintiff; What I suggest, your Honor His Honor : Answer the question. Do you suggest your engagements will be affected ? Plaintiff: If I had no theatres, no manager would engage me on reading that article.

MUST ANSWER THE QUESTION. His Honor: You are not answering tna question, sir, and have gone very near contempt of Court. You must answer questions when 1 command. However you refuse to answer, and I will leave the jury to draw their own inference. The question was repeated, and the plaintiff said the view ho took was that if he was bankrupt to-morrow his voice would not be an asset. Plaintiff denied that his voice was thin and nasal, and that his production was bad. “It comes out very easily,’j’ he declared. . Sir John Findlay: Like the song of a bird ? , ~ ’, j Plaintiff: Yes; like the song of a bird.' ' ’■ V'•

Sir John Findlay: If anyone said your voice was thin and nasal, how would vou prove it was not? ' ' ) ' | ■ I i • f * f J * . ( *, Plaintiff; I would sing to him. (Laughter.) Sir John Findlay: Do you know what a pig’s whistle is? ■ Plaintiff: It is very objectionable. Sir John Findlay; Do you know the •dictionary meaning is .“a low whisper ?” Plaintiff : I doh’t, and I won’t admit tho author is right. ’ Sir John Findlay: You should look up the meaning of the word before claiming £5Ol damages. Replying to further questions, plaintiff contended that the articles objected to was not a criticism, but merely abuse. When tiro cross-examination of the plaintiff had concluded, Mr McGregor proceeded to call expert evidence as to the quality of plaintiff’s voice. This was ruled out on Sir John Finday objecting, the ground for disallowing being virtually that experts could be got in equal numbers to pronounce an opinion either way on the matter. No more witnesses were called for plaintiff, whose case was closed.

No evidence was called for the defence, and at the judge’s direction the claim was amended so that half of the damages was claimed in rdspect of each imputation complained of. His Honor, in summing up, said the first statement complained of was no libel, and, secondly, to imply managerial meanness was fair comment. After a retirement of twenty minutes the jury found for the defendant on both issues, judgment being entered accordingly, with costs.