ABOUT A REVOLVER.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXIII, 21 March 1927, Page 11

ABOUT A REVOLVER.

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FAILS. By Telegraph—Press Association. WELLINGTON, March 18. “Your hip pocket, m which it is believed you carry an automatic revolver. No man is allowed to take the law into his own hands, and no man is justilied in currying an automatic pistol on his person. It is against the law. We ask in tour, sir, what sectarian influence, if any, is brought to bear enabling you to carry a pistol, which we refuse to believe.”

The above passages appeared in an “Open Letter to the Ilev. Howard Elliott” in the issue of the “New Zealand Critic” of November 9, 1926, and were the .grounds on which Mr Elliott sought to recover £IOO damages from the Critic Newspaper Proprietary, Ltd. Reserved iiidement in the ease was given by Mr Page, S.M., as follows: ‘“Plaintiff says the words and statements above-mentioned and the imputations contained therein are false and malicious, and were published without lawful'justification or excuse,” said the Magistrate. “Counsel for the plaintiff, in opening, conceded that it was his client’s practice to carry a revolver and counsel produced the weapon in Court, a five-chambered thirty-two-bore revolver. Counsel also produced the certificate of registration and license to carry a firearm issued under the Arms Act in 1921, and renewed from year to year to February 16, 1927. The only evidence called on behalf of plaintiff was that of a gun expert. This witness deposed that the weapon produced was known in the trade, not as an automatic pistol, but as a revolver. At the close of plaintiff’s case, counsel applied fop a nonsuit. “The question is whether there is a case to answer. Counsel contends the newspaper, article contains a statement of innuendo that plaintiff is guilty of a -crime punishable by imprisonment, in that he carries a firearm without being licensed so to do, or that he cairies a firearm of a type the carrying of which is absolutely prohibited by law.

. “With regard to the first, I do not think the article can fairly be interpreted as alleging that plaintifF carries a firearm without being the holder of a license. No part of the article in words makes such an allegation, and in respect of one of the passages complained of, njimely, that regarding sec* fcarian influence, the only reasonable interpretation is that plaintiff has obtained some permission or license enabling him to carry a firearm.

“With regard to the second contention counsel for plaintiff conceded that |f the article had alleged merely that lie carried a revolver, ;then, as such statement is in fact true, it would not be actionable. Ido not think that article really alleges or suggests anything more than this. It is'true that under the Arms Act, 1920, it is made an offence to be in possession of an automatic pistol as defined in the Act. No power is given by the Act for granting a license to carry such a pistol, though licenses or permits for the carrying of other sorts of pistols may be granted. Counsel' contends that the .article states or implies that the type of pistol carried by plaintiff is one absolutely prohibited by the Arms Act, but I do not think this contention of connsel is a reasonable interpretation of the article, nor do I think that it would be so understood by readers. The firearm carried by plaintiff is a pistol or revolver, and is automatic in its action. _ I think the language \ised in describing the firearm which plaintiff admittedly carries is fair.

“I find, therefore, that -If*® statements or implications set out by plaintiff in his statement of claim are in substance and in fact true, and that, therefore, plaintiff’s claim must fail.” Judgment accordingly was given for the defendant company with costs to scale, £5 Is.