LIBEL ACTION AGAINST NORTON’S TRUTH.

Temuka Leader, Issue 582, 27 May 1909, Page 4

LIBEL ACTION AGAINST NORTON’S TRUTH.

SUBSTANT IAE DAMAGES. CHRISTCHURCH, May 25. The hearing of the liljol action T. W. Stringer, K.C. Crown Prosecutor at Christchurch, v. John Norton, proprietor of Truth, in which £2OOO damages was claimed, took place at the Supreme Court to-day l)efore Mr Justice Dcnniston and a common jury of t wel ve. Mr Skerrctt appeared for plaintilT, and Mr Milford for defendant. The statement of claim set out that on -March Ltth, 1900, at Christchurch, defendant published in Truth certain words connected with the Bruges case implying that plaintiff had bum a party or privy to payment of £IOO for the purpose of suppressing the prosecution of Bruges and defeating the 'ends of justice, and that the plaintiff, had been guilty of dishonourable ami unprofessional -conduct in connestion with the prosecution of Bruges on a criminal charge : the publication was false ami malicious, anti plaintiff claimed £2OOO damagesDefendant, in the statement of defence, denied the material allegations in the statement of claim, and said that if it should be proved that the words complained of were published of and concerning plaintiff, the same were published without the knowledge ol or authority of defendant, defendant lining at the time of the publication of the said words resident in England. Defendant denied that the words of the rtielo complained of in the statement of claim were written or published falselv or maliciously, or with a libellous and defamatory sense of meaning, and in narlicular defendant denied the (•articular meanings ascribed to defendant us set out in the statement o{ claim. Defendant also alleged that (lie article complained of was published by (Wendant as a public journalist, and that the said article was a fair and bona tide comment upon a matter of "iiblic interest, and it was print'd and published bona tide and without malice, ami for the benefit of the public and not otherwise. Defendant denjit 1 that plaintiff had suffer'd any damages to Ids credit, reputation, or character.

Kvidi’in;i' ndatmy t«» the farts covered by tlir article war- (riven by Mr St miner. l>u( no evidence was ralh*d for (lie defence. Mr SloTivtt, ja In’s address to (he jury, ashed want was the mason foilin' existence of such a paper as 'l'ndh. It would probably lie said that Hite naix-r existed (o expose vice, and that it, had a hi >_<• 1 1 mission. He would asp the (nrv was there in the paivr any hiv r h mission ; am- pnrsuii of respeelatile ideals : was there anythim- lail sordid money-i/rnliliiny and wickedness within it 7 “We have." eontinne- 1 Mr Skerrett, ‘ a hhdi e);ws in (his eoiinirv, and T believe Von will a"Tiv with me when f snv (hat this country would eoiiit'aie well with other countries of manv limes (he inhabitants in the rnjmcSly, conmcc, mid indepond'

enee of_its press. Let this sort of papcs in, and as euro as I stand here, you will have a different state of .things ; you will have a degraded press ; you will have a degraded moral tons, and you will have an unclean community.” In conclusion, Mr Skerrett said that in the present case leniency would be wasted. There were times when leniency was a virtue, but there wore other times when leniency was weakness and vice. The present was not a time for leniency ; a crisis had arrived, and the jury could not t-soa(>o the responsibility of saying whether that sort of thing was to go om or whether it ivw to cease. After a short retirement, the jury returned a verdict €for plaintiff for if2ooo, the full amount claimed.