WHAT'S IN A NAME?

Sun (Christchurch), Volume I, Issue 83, 14 May 1914, Page 9

WHAT'S IN A NAME?

APPARENTLY SOMETHING. Press Association. AUCKLAND, May 13. -A libel case with some unusual-fea-tures, occupied the attention of the Supreme Court until this evening. The parties were a nephew (th 6 plaintiff) and his uncle (the defendant), both bearing the same name, Robert BaTber. Mr R. Reed, K.C., appeared for the plaintiff, a caterer in the employ of the Buchanan Cake Company, and Dr. Bamford for the defendant, a caterer and baker. The' sum of £5Ol was claimed as damages for libel alleged to. be contained in a newspaper advertisement. >

A peculiar'story was related to the Court by counsel for the plaintiff, and supported, in the evidence. Several years ago plaintiff's mother, the sister of the defendant, met a man named Armstrong, and believing him to be single, though- it afterwards transpired that he was married, lived with him in London as his wife. changed his name to that of the woman, and the pair lived together as Mr and Mrs Barber,. Plaintiff and the other childT renborn to them, were kept in ignorance of the fact that their parents were not married to, each other, and that their father's name was not Barber. When the plaintiff was about 18, defendant wrote to his sister suggesting that one of her sons should come out to New Zealand. As a result the plaintiff came to Auckland and, went to work for defendant. Some months later, considering that he "was underpaid for the work he was doing, plaintiff gave his uncle a week's notice, and was thereupon summarily, dismissed. He then went "to the house of another relative. Defendant,-it was stated, ealled on him the same flight, and losing his temper, demanded ' that he should change his name, and told him of his irregular parentage. That was the first that ■plaintiff had ever heard of it, and he was considerably upset. _ His mother ■ went from England- to Fiji, and plaintiff went there, to see her. She then confirmed defendant's story as to the illegitimacy of her son. At her earnest solicitation lie kept the knowledge to himself. Subsequently plaintiff started in business as a fruiterer, and about six years ago joined his present employers. No trouble occurred between plaintiff and his uncle until recently, in March last, when a case was heard in whieh plaintiff's employers sued the organisers of a military ball at Dargaville in connection with an account for catering. During the hearing of this case some statements were /made reflecting on the quality of the food supplied by Buchanan's through their caterer, the plaintiff. The case was won by Buchanan's, but before judgment was given defendant inserted an advertisement in an Auckland paper, the portion objected to being as follows: —''Public notice. 1,-Robert Barber, caterer, am in no way connected with Robert Armstrong, going under the name of Robert Barber, caterer, in Buchanan's Cafe.'' On the day after the first appearanee in print of this advertisement, it was stated that plaintiff, on going to work, found his fellowemployees reading it. They passed it on to his employer, and in an interview the latter demanded from plaintiff an explanation, their grounds being that the statement in the advertisement, if correct, implied tfiat plaintiff was deceiving them, and was not the man he professed to be. Plaintiff thereupon told his employers the secret of his birth, in order to remove from their minds the suspicion that he had been guilty of some offence. He was told that he would have to publicly clear his name from all suspicion of deceit, as the firm could not. employ a man about whom so many things were being said. Other effects of the publication of the advertisement were said to be the prostration of plaintiff's mother,, the revelation to his brothers of the

truth as to their parentage regarding which they were till then in complete ignorance, the noed for explanation to friends whom plaintiff cared for; the V tittle-tattle" of fellow-employees, and the coldness experienced by him at the hands of others who passed him by ' 1 with their noses turned up.'' Further, plaintiff sacrificed his private business interests rather than go amongst people who might, have read- the advertisement. Finally, to avoid remaining under a stigma, the. defendant having- offered to publish an apology, but not in the

form demanded, plaintiff issued a writ for libel. Defendant then paid sums amounting to £35 and 'costs intb Court, and again offered to apologise,, but the form of apology 'offered was still! not considered satisfactory. Yesterday, before the case was called, the plaintiff. offered- to settle the matter if the defendant paid him £ls damages'and the costs incurred. He had also inserted in the papers a specified apology. The defendant agreed to apologise as suggested, but" would not conr sent; to the other terms.

For the - plaintiff, it was contended that the libel was false and malicious. .This was denied by the defendant, who,, however, admitted that the plaintiff's true name was Robert Barber, after his mother. I After an absence of half an hour,- , the jury returned with a verdict for I plaintiff, . with £125 damages.