A CHRISTCHURCH LIBEL CASE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2512, 27 May 1909, Page 5

A CHRISTCHURCH LIBEL CASE.

DAMAGES ONE FARTHING

[Per Press Association.]

CHRISTCHURCH, May 26. c The libel ease of Huston Curlett, oi Christchurch, moneylender, against the “Lyttelton Times” Company, claim for £5Ol damages, w r as heard at the Supreme Court to-day before Mr. Justice Denniston and a common jury of twelve. ■ The statement of claim set out that the plaintiff was a registered moneylender carrying on business in Christchurch, and that on March sth, 1969, the defendant company, in the Issue of the “Star” of that date, published an article headed “Shylock,” which made it appear that the plaintiff had acted in a grossly unjust, arbitrary, unscrupulous and* improper manner in his transactions of the particular case referred to and in the general conduct of his business as a moneylender, and that lie was an undesirable person for borrowers to do business with, and that he was bleeding liis fellows.. In consequence of the said article the plaintiff had been greatly injured in his reputation and in his business, and had been brought into public odium, ridicule, and contempt. The publication tvas false and malicious, and the plaintiff prayed judgment for £5Ol. For the defence it was admitted that the words set out in the statement of claim had been printed and published as a leading article in the “Star.” It was contended that the words did not mean what plaintiff alleged they meant, that they were incapable of that or any defamatory meaning, and that they were no libel. It was further stated on March 4th, 1909, an action was brought in the Christchurch Magistrate’s Court, in which Samuel Fullerton Tait was the plaintiff and the present plaintiff was the defendant for the recovery of an advance by the nrosent plaintiff to S. F. Tait under certain chattels as security over which he held a bill of sale, and a full report of'- the said action appeared in the “Star” of March sth. The article complained of, it was contended, was published by the defendant company in the ordinary course of its business as public journalists and without malice towards the plaintiff, arid that it was a fair and bona fide comment on the said action and the evidence given thereon, which were then matters of public interest in Christchurch and the neighborhood. His Honor, in summing up. said that the comment bad been based on facts which were not true, and therefore the comment was unjustifiable, and the jury .should find a verdict for plaintiff with reasonable damages. A verdict was returned for plaintiff with one farthing damages. The question of costs was held over till to-morrow.

In the course of his summing up. the Judge laid it down that when a paper commented on facts it took the risk of those facts being untrue, and comment on untrue facts could not be justified as fair comment.