LYTTELTON TIMES LIBEL.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXVII, Issue 2, 3 September 1913, Page 5

LYTTELTON TIMES LIBEL.

PAPER LOSES TWO CASES. [Per Pkess Association.] Christchurch, September 1

At the Supreme Court to-day, befor a common jury of twelve, an action brought by John Alexander Newell v the Lyfcetlton Times Co., was heard Plaintiff claimed £IOOO damages to libel arising out of an article publish ocl in the Star on May 17, reflecting on plaintiff in his capacity as gao surgeon. The statement of defence ndmittethat the statements in the article wen untrue, but pleaded that he publiea tion of an apology had been offeree together with £IOO which plaintiff bar’ refused. The defendants brought £IOO into Court as sufficient to satisfy the claim. The jury retired for thirty minutes, and on returning announce: a verdict for plaintiff with £3OO dam ages. Judgment with costs as pc scale was entered accordingly, but the costs for second counsel were not ai lowed.

An action brought by Alexando Adair Johnston v. the Lyttelton Time: Co. was heard before a common jnr of twelve. Plaintiff claimed ;C10(X damage's for libel contained in. a letter written by a correspondent to tin editor of the Lyttelton Times, am published in that newspaper on Jnr.

20. The statement of claim set o" that plaintiff war, a Fellow of th Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and that as a result of criticisms nthe animal home maintained by th Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, arrangements under which he was to control the homo were pub lislu'd in the Lyttelton Times on JnL 2‘L and later a letter signed “Veri tas” was published, stating that the

dogs were destroyed by means o 1 str\Hinino. Plaintiff said that the statements contained in the letter implied that he had wantonly and cruel ly destroyed the dogs, and that he wagin'! ty of culpable ignorance in tin exercise of bis professional duties. Tin' statement of defence was thai the defendant Company bad offeree to publish an apology and to pay bis cos's, and that the letter had beer published without any malice or attempt to do injury. After a retirement of fifty minutes the jury returned with a verdict awarding plaintiff tin damages. Judgment was entered accordingly with costs.