A SPORTING LIBEL ACTION.

Inangahua Times, Volume VIII, Issue 1259, 16 April 1883, Page 2

A SPORTING LIBEL ACTION.

The libel action De Mestre Against Syme, in which the plaintiff sought to recover £5,000 damages, was heard in tlie Supreme Court at Melbourne before Mr justice Williams. The libel complained of was contained in the followingpairsage, which appeared in in an article in that journal shortly After the later Spring Meeting; of the V.RC. :--" Benefited to theextent of 61b by the airing to which he waa treated in the Spring Hanrifefo on the third day, Gudarz madenojJ&istake when the stable, money waft piled on him for the V.R.C. Handicap.?' It was asserted by the pontiff that he : was thus charged with .^-pulling" the horse named in the Spring Han- , dica<p, in order that he might in tlie V.B.C. Handicap, secure a reduction of weight, . and thus win a large amount Plaintiff was represented by Mr Webb, Q,C.» Mr, Molesworth, and Mr Box; for the defendant) Mr PurveSjDr Madden, and Mr Hodges appeared. The defendant pleaded— first, not guilty; and second, that the article complained of was a fair comment., Ths witnesses called for the plaintiff were clodnly .questioned by Mr Purves as to tbe practice followed by Mr De Mesfcre when jfnnninghis horses, .but no attempt was made to rebut the statement of plaintiff that Gudarz was not polled. Samuel Watchem, a commercial traveller, and a personal friend of Mr De Mestre's. for many years, denied any knowledge of the piantiff having got up a sham trial between' Calamia and Firebeli for the purpose of inducing people to back the former, whilst he won with the latter. At the recent meeting De Mestre backed Solitude, with which he declared to win, and lost money byNavigator winning the event, making a difference to him (plaintiff) of about £1,300. W. Hadden, trainer to Mr De Mestre, deposed that he could not account for the bad running o Gudarz in the Spring Handicap, except that the tune was too good. Mr De Mestre, the plaritiff, deposed that he had lost money through the failure of Gudarz to win the Spring Handu cap. He did not lose., much, because he did not bet much as a rule. Ho had not a panny on him for tomorrow's race, but lie would not scratch him now, but the public had got their

' money on him. If he had auother horse "in -the rac;e;*he might declare to win with him, asjitjwbuld be quite within his 'Hghfe 'as owner to' do so. Even ■'if'he'hadjnotthe besthdrse, that did, not mean that he would ''pull" Navi- i g^ator, because he would let his best none win. W. Pearson, ownerof race hones, deposed that he interpreted the article to mean tiiatDe Mestire; « pulled" Gudarz in the Spring Handi-' ~" ; capi If he did, he deserved to be disqualified:' Witness would think the • 'bwrifer quite justified in scratching a- ' horse " on whicV the public plunged ■'• before him, or in declaring to win with another hors& ~ In summing up, the Judge pointed that plaintiff was a. public maa competing for -public - -'stokes, and his actions were thus liable • $fr fair criticism* The jury had to^ consider whether the r comiments in the * * Leader' were fair in view of the Acts proved in evidence. It might be taken :•.,. «s cdhoeded. fliat Gudarz- was. not ••" pulledj^b^t defendant said the facts 'looked so suspicious" thatihe'wasijusti- — ijed in commenting" on'thpn. Etfenif * /i^cb? comments on tiiefacls were erron' , ebusj.yet it. they -were fair, .the defence .was. complete. The' jury, ■ after a brief deliberation, returned a . verdict for. the defendant.