LIBEL ACTION.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16156, 9 March 1918, Page 9

LIBEL ACTION.

EEATH AND 00. v. "JOHN BULL." PLAINTIFFS ALLOWED COSTS. The judgment of liis Honour Mr Justice Chapman on the- question of costs in the libel action brought by Beath and Co. (Mr F. Wilding, K.C., with him Mr Ward) against Maurice Goldsborough (Mr S. .6. Raymond, K.C., with him Mr Cassidy), Frederick James Dawson and the John Bull Nowspaper Proprietary, Ltd. (Mr Ouningham), in which the plaintiffs claimod'£looo damages, but wore awarded only one farthing by the jury, was read in the Supremo Court by his Honour Mr Justice Herdman yesterday. lu the course of liis judgment, his Honour said that the libel was not capable of being characterised as puerile in its nature. It professed to give the public some account of the plaintiff company. It was grouped under a heading "Who's Who,'' in the paper "John Bull's Register," and the other articles under the heading all related to Germans or persons with German names trading in New Zealand. ' The article had plainly hinted that the plaintiff company was connected with Germans or people with German sympathies, and that some of the shareholders might be found tomewhere in Prussia, and had been intended, as counsel for the defence had put it, to warn the public against traders having such a connexion. His Honour reviewed various other aspects of the case as brought out in the evidence, and went on to say that tho jury had found that the defendants falsely and maliciously published defamatory statements and insinuations concerning the plaintiff company. "When in an action for tort a .iuij gives only a farthing damages,'" l.is Honour's judgment proceeded, "its so may lie open to several interpretations. It may mean that the plaintiff's case is proved, but that his personal conduct has been contemptible, or it niav mean that the libel is puerile, or it mny import the erroneous notion that because pecuniary loss is notshown. damages ought not to be awarded. The mere amount awarded does not solve these questions. They have to be dealt with by the Judge in exercising his discretion as to costs. Rule 556 entitles the successful party to his j costs, but T>y Rule 557 ho is not | entitled to any costs unless the j judge ceitiiies that costs should lie allowed. In this case I so certify, because 1 think that the libel was wholly unjustifiable, and was a serious imputation on the plaintiff company. This does not conflict with the verdict; if it did I should still he exercising mv discretion in the light of undisputed facts. Costs on the lowest scale, with witnesses expenses and disbursements, to bo fixed by the Registrar; second counsel allowed.'