FARTHING DAMAGES

Taranaki Daily News, 15 August 1933, Page 9

FARTHING DAMAGES

“CONTEMPTUOUS” SUM.

AUSTRALIAN JURIES’ AWARDS.

Though the farthing is not in circulation in Australia, juries in civil actions Continue to follow the practice, which grew up in English Courts, of awarding the lowest coin of the British realm as contemptuous or ignominious damages. Such a verdict was given by a jury in a divorce suit in a Melbourne ■Court recently. Mr. Justice Macfarlan ordered that the farthing be paid into Comt, but the order was necessary only to complete his - judgment. Officials of the Supreme Court in Melbourne, says the Argus, cannot recall a case in which the . verdict has been obeyed. It is merely the jury’s way of expressing its contempt for the amount of damages or injury which an aggrieved party, in'its opinion, has suffered. Though there is no record in the Victorian Courts of a person mulct in one farthing damages ever having paid the coin into Court, any litigant who chose to abide by the Judge’s order would have little trouble in obtaining the exact amount. . .The farthing has never been circulated in Australia, and it is not mentioned in the-schedule of coins attached to the Coinage Act, but as a curio it is common. Officials at the Mint estimate that there must be thousands of farthings in curio shops and private homes. Some years ago the Rank of New South Wales' imported £5 worth—4 Boo of them—for a dealer in coins in Sydney.. The meaning of verdicts for contemp-. tuous damages, whether the amount be a farthing, a -shilling, or 20s, is not' always clear, and judges and counsel are often puzzled by them. A jury; may mean that an alleged slander or libel' may be so nearly true that ignominious damages will suffice; or the farthing may be given to indicate the jury’s'opinion that an. action should ■ never have ■been brought. Contemptuous damages also may be awarded, to establish a right, .as ,in a trespass, or to vindicate a character. ' >• .■ '

It' is said that there is still much doubt in law about' the effect of a verdict for contemptuous damages. Though juries may not realise it when they return such a verdict,\ it. may have, and often has, in- some kinds of litigation, the effect of depriving a successful party of his right ’ to recover his costs from the other side. “It- depends upon the judge,” says a barrister, “but the normal rule is that contemptuous damages do not in themselves amount to good cause for depriving a plaintiff of his costs.”