“VULGAR INNUENDO"

Stratford Evening Post, Issue 91, 5 July 1930, Page 6

“VULGAR INNUENDO"

A NEWSPAPER PARAGRAPH WOMAN AWARDED DAMAGES. CHRISTCHURCH, July 4. A paragraph published in a column headed “Sunspots,” was the basis of a libel action in the Magistrate's Court to-day. Jean Cunningham, a married woman, claimed £IOO damage.- from the Sun Newspapers, Ltd. Mr ,1. R. Dunningham, counsel for the plaintiff, said that the paragraph had reference to a party given in honour of the plaintiff, whose maiden name, and her then name, was Chick. Jn view of her approaching marriage it was a china evening, ’ill gifts being of china. The paiagrapli appearing in the column of alleg'd humour was coarse and vuh.u,: ,mm ridiculed her name. It ah; ■ ~ ued nasty and vulgar innuendo. name “Chick” had Dccn changed to “Cluck,” vhi h suggested a broody hen. Tin .. paragraph was associated wi,;. .. ‘'nig and other ideas relating to poui. y. There w.is no attack on plaintiff’s character, but she had been held up to the grossest ridicule. J Mr Cunningham, then the plaintiff’s (iaucee, had interviewed the editor of the San, but obtained no satisfaction, lining told the paragraph referred to Miss Cluck, not to Miss Chick. No attempt was\ made to right the wrong done. After correspondence between the plaintiff’s solicitor and the company's solicitor, an offer was made of a grudging apology, and this was not satisfactory to the plaintiff. If a free and full apology had been made this would have served. Counsel’s statement was supported by evidence. For the defendant Air Hutchison de ? nied the paragraph was defamatory, though if was, in his opinion, not in the best oT taste. The company, no said, had been willing to publish an apology. Ho claimed that no ordinary person would sec in the paragraph anything more than a harmless joke. The Magistrate ruled that the paragraph was, defamatory and gave judgment for plaintiff for £25.