A LIBEL ACTION.

Taranaki Daily News, 17 December 1924, Page 8

A LIBEL ACTION.

CLAIM AGAINST PAPER. TEN POUNDS DAMAGES. By Telegraph—Press Association. Wellington, Dec. 16. Judgment was given by Mr. Page, S.M., for plaintiff to-day, awarding £lO damages in the libel action Howard Elliott v. New Zealand Worker aud John Glover, publisher, claiming £lOO damages for allegedly defamatory statements published in the Worker on July 30 in the report of an-address by Mr.' 11. E. Holland, M.P. In his judgment the magistrate said that two grounds od defence were raosed: Fair comment on a matter of public interest and the truth of the allegations complained of that the plaintiff was seditionary and disloyal. With regard to the first ground of defence the magistrate held that fair comment must be an expression of opinion, not an assertion of fact. Some of the defamatory passages in the article were admittedly not merely expressions of opinion, but statements of fact. The magistrate held therefore that the defence of fair comment on a matter of public interest- could not be maintained.

For the second ground of defence, the defendant relied for proof of his allegations on the contents of certain articles published by or with the concurrence of plaintiff and on certain other matters elicited from plaintiff in cross-examination or proved at the hearing relating to plaintiff’s past actions. "Passages in these articles and pamphlets are bitter and intolerant sectarian attacks on the adherents of another church. They are calculated to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of his Majesty’s subjects, and some of them are, in my opinion, seditious within the meaning of section 118 of the Crimes Act. 1908.” His Worship held, however, that in order to succeed defendant must prove the truth of all the allegations complained of and, after careful consideration, he was of opinion that the second defence fell something short of this, and that therefore t'he second defence had not been established. “Loking at the whole of the circumstances, I propose to award plaintiff the sum of £lO by way of damages, with costs on that amount. Judgment was entered for plaintiff with costs £4 18s.”