CHRISTCHURCH NEWS.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 18541, 11 April 1930, Page 9

CHRISTCHURCH NEWS.

(From Our Own Correspondent.) IN AND ABOUT THE CITY. CHRISTCHURCH, April 10. Access to Port. It is understood that Sir Walter Stringer, a retired Judge of the Supreme Court, and Mr Drummond Holdemess, engineer to the Auckland Harbour Board, have been chosen as judicial president and technical expert respectively to sit on the Commission to be set up to investigate the question of improving the access from the City to the port. Finality has not been reached in connection with the j appointment of the third Commission- j er, who is to be a man of wide business experience, thoroughly conversant \ with the needs of the commercial j community. Some difficulty is being | experienced in securing the services of i a man acceptable to all the interests involved, but it is considered likely that finality will shortly be reached. No objections are likely to be raised to the appointment of Sir Walter Stringer and Mr Holderness, as both are regarded as eminently suitable. A conference of representatives of the local bodies and public organisations contributing to the cost of the Commission was held to-day, but the proceedings were taken in committee. Dr. Telford’s Disclaimer. Dr. T. Fletcher Telford, Medical Officer for Canterbury, does not believe that the complaint from which the Mexican parrots died in Christchurch is psittacosis. He stated this morning that he had never considered that the parrots were affected with that disease, and if he had believed , that they were, he would have advised j his head office, and the local authorities concerned. This he had not done, j Unregistered Dentist. In the Magistrate’s Court, before Mr E. D. Mosley, S.M., to-day, Ernest | Alexander Ozanne pleaded guilty to a charge that, not being registered as • dentist, he practised dentistry. i Chief-Detective J. Carroll said that defendant had been practising for 30 years. During the last year or so he had been practising without being registered. Mr E. A. Lee said that defendant had had about 30 years’ experience. He had practised under the 1908 Act, which allowed him to practise until 1924, when he was required to pass an examination. He suffered from a nervous breakdown at the time of the examination. He sat again in 1926, and failed in theoretical subjects. He was to sit again in 1928, but owing to a family bereavement he missed the train to Dunedin, and thus missed the examination. The case was not one of a quack dentist, but one of an experienced man who had failed, through a series of misfortunes, to pass an examination. Since 1924 he had not extracted teeth or made fillings. Defendant was fined £5 and costs, the Magistrate remarking that he was there to administer the law, and he thought that this law was a very good one, and very necessary. Damages for Libel. A claim for £2OO damages for alleged libel was brought against the "Sun” In the Magistrate’s Court to-day. The plaintiff was George William Goodge, a taxi-driver, who alleged that a false and malicious statement was published against him by the newspaper. The case arose cut of a report of a by-law prosecution in which Goodge was fined 5/- for being asleep in his taxi-cab. Mr H. A. Young was on the Bench. Mr Moloney appeared for plaintiff and Mr Hutchison for defendants. The statement complained of was as follows: —“Tired taxi drivers are evidently one of the products of the competition among taxis in Christchurch at present. George Goodge may not have been ‘out on the booze’ on November 18, but he certainly was asleep in his cab on the railway station stand, so Mr E. D. Mosley, S.M., fined him 5/- and costs for the offence.”

For plaintiff Mr Moloney said that in the hearing of the charge against Goodge, the question of liquor did not enter into the proceedings. Goodge was a man of temperate habits, and the statement which had been published was libellous. "The Press of New went on Mr Moloney, "maintains a fine standard. Unfortunately, however, since the war there has been a falling away, and in some cases there Is a tendency towards a class of sensationalism which reacts to the cost of the private individual. I submit that in the present case there was an endeavour to present the action against Goodge in as sensational a manner as possible.” Counsel asked that £2OO be awarded plaintiff. The sum of £SO had already been paid into Court. Goodge was not only a business man of many years’ standing, but he was secretary of the Blue Star Taxi Drivers’ Association.

"Everybody was ‘chipping’ me after that report had got around,” said plaintiff, giving evidence, "and after a short time It became unbearable. My business fell off, and I was forced to change my stand and to try to work up another business.” The public would have nothing to do with taxi-drivers who had a reputation for insobriety. The report was altered in the second edition of the newspaper, but the damage had been done. There had also been offers of apology. Mr Hutchison: “Didn’t the traffic inspector explain to the Magistrate that the case was the first of its kind, and that he wanted it to be given as much publicity as possible?”—“Yes.” Plaintiff to Magistrate: "We are up against two or three different companies and the opposition made a big thing out of the published statement.” Mr Hutchison: "The statement was changed Immediately by the defendants on their own volition.” Evidence was led for dftfandapii to

show that the offending words. "Out on the Booze,” had been allowed to appear in one edition only, having been altered in later editions to "Out late.” Defendants, it was stated, had offered to publish an apology, but this plaintiff would not accept. Counsel for defendants said the libel was not disputed, and was the result of an unfortunate blunder which might easily happen in any evening newspaper. He submitted that the amount paid into Court, £SO. was adequate allowance for damages. The Magistrate gave judgment for plaintiff for the amount paid into Court. Defendants were allowed costs.