£2000 DAMAGES.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 517, 26 May 1909, Page 4

£2000 DAMAGES.

ACTION FOR LIBEL. J . T. WJ STRINGER V. "TRUTH" 1 fur; ASSOCIATION.]' Christohurch, May 25. Tho hearing of tho libel action, T. W. Etrmger, K. 0., ,Crown, Prosecutor,at Christ church, v, John Norton, proprietor of '"Iruth," in which £2000 damages is claimed, took'pfaco at tho Supremo Court to-day, before Mr. Justice Denniston and a common jmy of twelve. Mr. Skerrott appeared for plaintiff, < and Mn Wilforcl for defendant. 'Iho statement 'of olaim set out that on March 14,1908, at Chnstchurch, defendant published in his newspaper, called "Truth," certain words connected "with Hhe' Bruges case, implying that plaintiff had been a party ot privy to tho payment of a sum of i!4OU, for tho purpose of suppressing the prosecution of Bruges, and of defeating the ends ot justice, and that plaintiff had been guilty ot dishonourable and unprofossionil -conduot in connection with the prosecution of Bruges on a criminal charge. Tho publication Was false and malicious,' and plaintiff claimed £2000 damages Defendant, in tho statement of defence, denied'the material allegations) in the statement of claim, and said that if it, should bo proved that tho words complained of, were published of, and concerning, plaintiff, : tho same were published without knowledge | oi authority of defendant, defendant being, i at tho timo, of tho publication of tho said i words, resident in England Defendant deL ined that the words of tho article complained of in the statement of' claim were written or published falsely or maliciously, or with libellous and defamatory sense' of meaning, and, in particular, dofendant denied pari ticnlar meanings ascribed to defendant, set out in the statement of claim. Defendant also alleged,that tho aiticle complained df was published by' dofendant as a' public journalist, and said ,the article was fairjand bona hdo comment upon a matter of public i interest, and it was printed and published bona' tide, and without malice, and for the benefit of tho public, and" not" otherwise Defendant denied that plaintitf bad suffered any damages to his ciedit, reputation,' or character. . Kvidence relating to facts covered by tho article wero'given by Mr. Stringer, but no ' evidence was called for tho defence. Mr, Skerrott, in his address to the jury, asked what was the reason for the existence nf such a paper as " Truth: " It would probably be said that the papor existed to expose rice, and that it hacf a high mission. He would ask the jury: Was there in the papor any high mission, any pursuit of respectame ideals? Was there anything but _ sordid money-grabbing and wickedness within it? "Wo have," continued Mr. Skerrett; "a high-chss press in this country, and I te-Jiove-you will agree with mo whon I say this country'would compare woll with othjr c-mntries of many times tbo inhabitants, hi capacity, courago, and independence of its press. Let this'sort of paper, in, and figure as 1 stand here, you will have a different stato of things. Yon will havo a degraded press and jou will have a degraded , moral tone, and you will have an unclean community." In conclusion, Mr. Skerr tt said that, in tho present case, leniency would bo wasted. There wero limes when leniency was a virtue, but ihero wero other times ■B-Iren leniency was a weakness and vice 'J'lio present was not the time for leniency. 'A crisis had arrived, and tho jury could not escape tho responsibility of - saymg whether that sort of thing was to go on, 'or whether it was to cease. , After 'i'short retirement, the jury returned a verdict' for plaintilt for i£2ooo, tho full | amount claimed.