ACTION FOR LIBEL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2511, 26 May 1909, Page 4

ACTION FOR LIBEL.

£2OOO DAMAGES OBTAINED

(Per Press Association.)

CHRISTCHURCH

Mav 25

The hearing of the libel action, J. M . Stringer, K.C., Crown Prosecutor at Christchurch, v. John Norton, proprietor of "Truth,” in winch £2OOO damages wore claimed, took place at the. Supreme Court to-day before Mr. Justice Denniston and a common jury of twelve.

Mr. Skerrett appeared for the plaintiff- and Mr. T. M. Milford for the defendant.

The statement of claim set out that on March 14th, 1908, at Christchurch, the defendant miblished in his newspaper called "Truth" certain words connected with the Bruges case, inferring that plaintiff had been a party or was privy to the payment of a sum of £4OO for the purposes of suppressing the prosecution of Bruges and of defeating the ends oi justice, and_ thatthe plaintiff had been guilty of dishonorable and unprofessional conduct in connection with the prosecution of Bruges on a criminal charge. The publication was false and malicious, and the plaintiff claimed £2OOO damages. The defendant, in the statement of defence, denied the material allegations in the statement of claim, and said that if it should be proved that the words complained of were published of and concerning the plaintiff, the same were published without the knowledge or the authority of defendant, defendant being at the time of the publication of the said words resident in England. Defendant denied that the words of the article complained of in the statement of claim were written or published falsely or maliciously or with a libellous and defamatory sense or meaning, and in particular the defendant denied the particular meanings ascribed to the article set out- in the statement- of claim. The defendant also alleged that the article complained of was published by the defendant as a public journalist, and that the said article was a fair, bona fide comment upon matter of public interest, and it was printed and published bona fide and without malice ■and for the benefit of the public and not otherwise. The defendant denied that the plaintiff had suffered any damages to his credit, reputation or character.

Evidence relating to the facts covered by the article were given by Mr. Stringer, but no evidence was called for the defence. Mr. Skerrett. in his address to the jury, asked what was tile reason for the existence of such a paper as

"Truth.” It would probably be said that the paper existed to expose, vice, and that it had a high mission. He wfnild ask the jury—Was there in the paper any high mission and pursuit? of respectable ideals? Was there anything but- sordid money-grubbing and wickedness within it? "We have.” continued Mr. Skerrett. " a high-class press in this country. You will agree with nf' when I say this country would compare well with other countries of manv times the number of inhabitants in the capacity, courage, and independence of its press. Let this sort of paper in. and as sure as I stand here you will have a different state of things. You will- have a degraded press, and you will have a degraded moral tone, and you will have an unclean community.” In conclusion, Mr. Skerrett said' that in the present case leniency would be wasted. There were times when leniency was a virtue, but there were other times when leniency was a weakness and a vice. The nresent was not a time for leniency. A crisis-had arrived, and the jury could' not ■' escape the responsibility of saying whether that sort of thing was to go on or whether it' was to- cease. After a short retirement the jmw returned a verdict for the plaintiff for £2OOO. the full amount claimed,