Toto Betting in Napier.

New Zealand Graphic, Volume XXX, Issue XXI, 23 May 1903, Page 1466

Toto Betting in Napier.

LIBEL ACTION DISMISSED. SEVERE COMMENTS BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE. NAPIER, May 16. The Supreme Court has been occupied for two days with a case A. L. Eagleton v. Knowles (proprietor of the “Daily Telegraph”), claim £2OOO damages for alleged libel. In the course of a letter published by the defendant newspaper it was asserted there were grave reasons why Eagleton should not contest the licensing election. This, it was alleged, implied that plaintiff had been guilty of acts of misconduct which rendered him unfit to take a prominent part in local politics.

and that he had suffered in reputation and credit in consequence of the letter. He claims £2OOO damages. The defendant newspaper denied that the words were published falsely or maliciously, or that plaintiff suffered in his reputation or credit thereby. Defendant further set out that plaintiff was a tote better, that at the time of the publication he was a professional turf commission agent and tote-better, and that the statement was bona fide comment on plaintiff in a public capacity. Several witnesses were called for the defence, who admitted having wagered at totalisator odds with the plaintiff, who, iu fact, admitted “tote” betting. Two of the witnesses were youths, who stated that at the time of the betting transactions they were under 20 years of age. Other evidence was called to show that the construction put upon the letters which formed the cause of action was that they referred only to plaintiff’s reputation as an alleged “tote” bettor.

Summing up, the Chief Justice said the newspaper did not make an untrue statement. The facts were true. It was only when there was something untrue said about a man that it constituted libel. It must be a direct cl targe of misconduct, not simply that there were reasons why he was not fit to take part in public life. The jury must take it as true, then, that Eagleton had been betting, and he was liable to three months’ imprisonment for each offence. If so, was he fit to take a prominent part in public affairs, and were they to say that a newspaper ought to be punished for the opinion expressed? It was not for His Honor to express an opinion upon the restrictions placed upon gambling, by the Government, but they could not say there was no moral side to this question when they knew the history of what gambling had done. They knew hundreds of youths who were ruined by thus “burning the candle.” They saw them often coining up for sentence. He put it to the jury, as fathers: Would they like to see their sons going into a “tote” shop? And, if there was nothing morally wrong about it, why should not their daughters and their sons go in there? Did they mean to say that a man who offended against the law, as plaintiff had done, was a man fit to take a prominent part in local affairs in Napier? A verdict for defendant was given on all the issues, with costs.