RIGHTS INFRINGED

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 843, 11 December 1929, Page 10

RIGHTS INFRINGED

DAMAGES OF £lO FOR LIBEL ACTION AGAINST THE SUN vVn echo of the Nelson Street stabbing affray on August 2 was heard in the Supreme Court yesterday, when James Anderson Gallott (Mr. Matthews), one of the men in the house at the time of the tragedy, was awarded £lO damages against the Sun Newspapers. Limited, on a claim for £2OO for libel. Mr. Justice Smith, who heard the ease, considered that Gallott was entitled only to such a sum as would indicate the infringement of his legal right. The action was based on a story of the tragedy, published the day after tho tragedy, headed “Fracas During Drinking Bout.” The words complained about were:—“lt is stated that the men had all been drinking together.” “It is stated that Leavy and the four other men—James Gallott, David Carmodv, Frederick Cole and Caffrey—had arrived at 119 Nelson Street, early in the evening with a quantity of liquor. They had all been drinking together and Caffrey became troublesome.” “Gallott and Caffrey were frequent visitors to the place.” The defence denied that the words were capable of libellous or actionable meaning nor were they intended to mean that Gallott was given to excessive drinking. In the box Gallott said ho was formerly a fruit and vegetable hawker, and now sold oysters in hotels and was a “glassman” at racing booths. Since tho publication of the article his friends would have nothing to do with him. He declared that “but for the unfortunate accident” he would have had a drink in the house the night of tho tragedy. Mr. Northcroft, for tho defence, described the claim as attempt to extort money from a newspaper on tho flimsy pretence that plaintiff had been libelled. After perusing the article, his Honour said that if thefre was innuendo in it, proof had not been given as it should. Tho story did not impute improper association to Gallott, nor that he was engaged in a fracas or brawl. A fair reading of the article, however, showed the statement that Gallott had been engaged in drinking, and, therefore, there was some reflection on the man’s character. Gallott »was clearly going to engage in drinking, but whether it would, have developed into a bout the Court could not state.