AN UNEQUAL LIBEL CASE.

Taranaki Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 144145, 15 July 1913, Page 6

AN UNEQUAL LIBEL CASE.

Is it a libel to say that a man is dead when lie is not dead? This curious point canio boforo Judge Box in the County Court at Melbourne last week. bast year a certain firm of undertakers inserted the following advertisement in tho Argus:—Brauston —The friends of tho late Mr. Arthur Branston arc informed that his remany* will be interred in the Necropolis, Springdale, leaving mortuary station, Prince’s Bridge, this day, at 2.10 p.m. Apparently tho only Arthur Branston in Melbourne was a dentist, who, though he had been ill, was by no means dead. Some of his friends, however, saw the advertisement, and concluded that lie was dead. One man got a black tic and prepared to go to the funeral, and his wife put on a black dress. Branston claimed damages on the ground that his reputation had been injured and ho himself had been subjected to ridicule. The Judge, however, hud not much sympathy for plaintiff. Ho said ho could understand a man complaining about being reported dead, but ho could not see whore the ridicule came in. He held that there could bo no injury to plaintiff’s reputation in tho advertisement. “It does not affect a man’s reputation to say ho is dead. Wo all have to die sometime, thank goodness.” Plaintiff’s business might have been affected, but that was not alleged in tho claim. He therefore nonsuited the plaintiff. A x>cculiar fetaure of tho case was that plaintiff’s counsel contended that the announcement that Brauston was to be buried in the Necropolis was calculated to injure his client. “Where else would a deceased man be interred?” tho Judge naturally asked. “Decent people go to tho cemetery,” was the reply. -Another peculiar feature was that apparently no person of tho name of Branston died at all, but tho funeral notice, which'was followed by tho name and address of tho undertakers, was a bogus one, inserted to advertise the firm. It is rather a grim method of advertisement.