A LIBEL CASE.

Timaru Herald, Volume XCIV, Issue 14457, 1 June 1911, Page 6

A LIBEL CASE.

IN TIMARU. SASIiCES ALLOWED. i Before Tfo Hoaotir Mr Justice in tbe Supreme Court yesterday, Peter Bowker claimed from the Post 7 ' Newspaper Company, the sum of £2OO, on the grounds that ©n October 14th, 1910, the defendants yublishod the following statement: — "As Peter Bowker is lio longer in my employ lie has no authority to receive goods in my name, and I wish to warn - all tradespeople of Timaru to give no credit to Poter Bowker, late of Hastings. —A. Georges/' Plaintiff claused that (1) that the statement meant, he was dishonest; (2) that he sraa cot to be entrusted with credit; and (3) "by reason of the notice, the plaintiff has been injured in his buaiXfc&ss, credit and. reputation, and has rafrered damage. , Mr Emsli© appeared for pi ain tiff, and £fr Holleston for defendants. I Mr Emslie, in commencing to open his case' said the defendants formally denied publication, not of "the advertisement, but of anything malicious or iajse. His Honour remarked, that the part e? the advertisement objected to was that which read "give no credit to Poier Bowker, late of Hastings." The question was whether an ordinary man could Treasonably see that the statement srculd damage plaintiff. There was no suggestion of msJice on the part of the paper. The advertisement,' ho supposed, was passed in the ustjAl way. Mr Emslie, _ continuing, said that Georges,* who inserted, tho advertisement, and ptelntTf, were rival fishmongers. and -chat Georges irad since left the 'Dominion. Plaatiff ' was formerly carrying on trasfness in and carae to Tirceru twelve . dontb-i 320, first of all working as a cool: for Georges, and later starting in business <rn his own account. He took a-, shop in town, and had it fitted op-. Ho tcck the shop two 'or three days previous to the iusertion of the advertisement on October 14th, • and contemplated making a start the following week. . The result of the advertisement was that his credit was very oeriousljr injured.

Hia. Honour said that Mr EftisUe would have to prove that, and he could not give special instances unless he sued for special damages. Mr Emslie said that the ease was one «f the general class of cases an which, the specific losses of business would be allowed to show what had occurred frcftn the advertisement. Hie HoKour said that a general loss of business was a general falling off. Counsel could only show tiie losses of credit. General damages could only l>e shown in a way of say, a business man's takings falling from £SO to £2O a week. Emslie, after further argument, agreed, to sue for damages on general grounds, and to call such evidence. Mr Einslie proceeding with'his opening, said that plaintiff only had about £'3o or £35 to begin with. In consequence of the advertisement, he was refused,credit. Not being able to get supplies; ho did not do as much business as .lie would otherwise have done.' His honour'said counsel would have to prove that. 3lr Emslie said that he could do so, for the local fishermen, seeing the advertisement, had shunned plaintiff. Instead of makiug a living out of the business, plaintjff made barely enough to pay expense's. As a final -consequence, he had to close up. After counsel/ wrote to the paper, it circulated v an apology. Efo wrot© on October 17th, and the apology ap-peared-two days later. His Honour said the paper could not have- doue' much more. Did counsel

suggest .that the advertisement followed by so early an apology would 'do all that harm? The paper itself deemed tho advertisement a reflection oa claimant's credit. It was, after all, rather aii advertisement for the man J -Mr Emslie then called the plaintiff, Peter Bowker, a Greek, said If came-to Timaru twelve months ago. He was previously in Hastings as a fishmonger.- After working for G?orjjt» for some time, he left in September last to start for himself. The alterations to his shop cost £*4o. He exhausted' all his money iu fitting up. "Witness had arranged with a grocer for supplies, but was refused credit by him on.'the -Saturday following ri;e advertisement. The local fisherman 'refused to suppta him. His Honour here stated that without Mr Emslie going further, it was a reasonable presumption that Bowker would have done better had the advertisement not appeared. Some argument here took place as to whether, in view of the facts, an adjournment could not be got, and the ca«e settled. Mr Rolleston submitted that plaintiff was only entitled to nominal damaged. Mr Emslie submitted that it was a case for general damages. His Honour said it would take a ffreat deal to make him believe Bowker was entitled to more than moderate damages. .' Continuing, witness said th'dt he should have cleared £4 a week out of his business, under ordinary circumstances. . He was often without-fish in his. shop when, there was plenty of fish in the. market. To Mr Rolleston: Witness did not know, when George left Timaru. but had seen Inni within the past month. At Hastings, witness was in business as j a fishmonger. When he left Hastings, ! he was not owing any money. It x-.i s ! quite untrue that George" was .instructed to collect £2O from witness on behalf of a man in Hastings. He would not deny that ho owed £27 on', the alterations, and improvements to -his shop made in October. He would dfny that he owed Manning, a grocer, '£l2 for groceries. He owed him something for crockery. Manning obtained judgment against witness for the amount owing. It was not true t-hab Miller, a grocer, refused witness credit even before the advertisement appeard. He. owed, another num for furniture. Judgment was recently obtained against him bv a resident of the Lower Hutt. "Wellington. A num named Dellabarco in Timaru, supplied him with fish, and he Whs sued lor muncv owing to him. Two of his employees, and the man who supplied him 'with milk sued him. The employees were since paid. Edward Cannon, a fishmonger, said a fair average profit from .such a business was from £3 to £•> a week. His Honour, addressing Mr Rolleston, "said he would take it for granted that- the advertisement was mistakenlv inserted. Mr Rolleston said the words that caused the trouble were lmrricd into the paper, and added to the advertisement at the la-st moment. His Hpnonsr sa:d this showed that the specif, attention of the newspaper had thus been drawn to the words. • The whole pnint was whether te words were of a'lihellous character and how much damages were to bo allowed- Whether the advertisement slipped in or not the paper was neither less por more liable. " Mr- Rolleston commented on the lapse of time from tho publication of - the advertisement and the action being taken, and submitted that the case was one for nominal damages aud nothing' more. Win. Miller, grocer, said that he had refused plaintiff credit because he did,- not know ram, alid ateo. afterwards, because of the advertisement. Mr Euislie said that if it had nut been for the advertisement, plaintiff would not have hnd to admit what ho had that day. Directly and indirectly. the failure of plaintiff's business w ac due to this advertisement. It waa almost inconceivable to reckon the damage that such an advertisement could <Jo .in n ?mnl 1 community. Council «uhm:t' , .~d that it wn* not a case

lor noiniuat-damage**. n«»r j'.ir exleii.sive or light damans, hut a r:ist- in which. t-lu« plaintiff was entitled hi i'nir compensation. H.muur said tiV;it iho advertise-• menfc had appeared in a not 'ery piominenl part of tho paper. Then* was no doubr Hint it. was u r-ery improper advertisement to put in.* The reason' for it going in wns easily ex--1 plained. It was vertoittly a distinct ' intimation that Bowk»»r wn« a m.m woft could not be trusted , with credit. Th>, apology nnd .the circumstances removed ant implication of malice on th<\ part of Iho paper. The question wo* as to what damaßC« might reasonably l>e given. The claimant put forward iv preposterous claim nnd His Honour did not helicrc that any jreat d-nmag* "had hecD done. The damages wore of a v«ory trifling description and judgment for £lo should amply repav plaintiff. »fudguirint tvoald be given for plaintiff for £ls land oofito 011 tho lowest scalo (£l7 18s).