LIBEL ACTION.

Waikato Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 2579, 22 January 1889, Page 2

LIBEL ACTION.

(BY TELEGUAI'II.— OWN (JOItHESrONI)KNT.) Auckland, Monday. In the Supremo Gmit the libel action, damages .23,000, of L-irnaeh v. proprietors of the New Zealand Herald was commenced this morning. Plaint id' says that on the 19th July, 1888, defendants falsely ami maliciously published articles commenting on the departure i.f plaintiff Iroiu the colony when Parliament was in session, to enter into business in Melbourne, having first asked leave of absence on the plea of illness in his family, and continuing to draw his honorarium, whereof he claimed £3.000 damages. Defendants admit publication, but deny malice and say that the subject of the article of the alleged libels became and was matter of public interest, and thereupon they published the comments they set out in plaintiff's statement, bona tide for the public good, and without sinister or malicious motive. They also deny that the said publications are libellous. Sir Robert Stout is appearing for plaintiff and Mr Gully for defendants. Mr Larnach's evidence, which was short, detailed his movements during the session, and explained that he had been called toDimedin by an urgent message from the doctor attending his daughter. He was cross-examinod to show that it was the common impression he was about to leave for Melbourne. He stated he had given a banquet to civil servants, and replied to a gentleman who spoke on the matter that he was going to leave the colony. He had received an apology by telegram from defendants, but did not deem it sufficient. Dr. Canghtrey was called to prove the illness of plaintiffs daughter, but the evidence was notadmitted as irrelevant. This was plaintiff's case. The only evidence called was that of Mr G. M. Reed, who wrote the first article, and Mr W. Berry, editor of th> .Yew Zealand Herald, who wrote the second. They deposed they wrote without malice, in the public interest, on what they supposed to be tho true facts of the case. An apology had been published in the paper, and also tendered privately by telegram to Mr Larnach when it was ascertained the facts were wrong. Mr Gully asked His Honour to direct the jury that tho articles were justified on the circumstances the writers had before- them, but Judge Richmond said the latter were bound to assure themselves the facts were c irrect before commenting on them. Counsel having briefly addressed the jury, His Honour summoned up, pointing out the facts upon which comment was basrd by public writers must bo established cm reasonable evidence. Ho quoted several cases, including Bryce v. Rusden, to show the state of the law, and said it had been admitted theio was an error in the facts. The jury, after retiring •10 minutes, returned and asked what sum would carry costs. His Honour said costs were now at the discretion of the Judge. Tlio jury then gave a verdict for plaintiff, damages .toOO. Costs were allowed on the middle scale.