HORSE TRAINER SUES.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 909, 31 August 1910, Page 8

HORSE TRAINER SUES.

FOR DEFAMATION. . COURT AWARDS '.£5 DAMAGES. . IBy Telegrßßh.—Press Association.! Palmerston North, August 30. At the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon, before his Honour Mr. Justice Cooper, Alfred James Shearsby, horsetrainer, of Awapuni, claimed .£250 damages for alleged libel from the Christ' church "Press" Company, Ltd. Mr. W. L. Fitzherbert, with Mr. C." A. Loughnan, appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. M. Myers, of Wellington, for the defendant company. Tho libel was said to be contained in Iho following, frorii the Manawatu . special correspondent to tho "Press":— (a) Price is certainly entitled to the highest praise for tlie way, he has brought his horses along. When he took charge thoy were in anything but a satisfactory condition, tho best of the lot of . them now, Polymorphous, being. perhaps. the worst off. (b) He', was, for some time after Price had' lum, badly affected' with rheumatism, and only repeated foriien- • tations got him well. It was contended that the meaning of this was" that, by reason of tho unskilful or negligent' treatment of the plaintiff, the horse, Polymorphous, had contracted rheumatism; and further that the plaintiff had. failed to treat it with the usual remedies for rheumatism in horses; ,so that only tho repeated applications of .hot fomentations cured' him. (o) It may be ' remembered that ■ Boanerges, whu is now in the front rank-(if sprinters, developed , a penchant for. falling. 'Price rode him himself till he arrived at a solution of ; that peculiarity.: \ ■ • (e). He (meaning the said • George Price) is painstaking, . attentive, and thoroughly, conscientious in his work ...r-qualities, that, count for a lot in ~ training as well as'in other'pursuits.' (d) His success with Nvland, w ; ho is credited with' a superlative tem-• per, is regarded in some quarters as. the most valuublo demonstration' of Price's abilities. ... ,

The;statement of- defence .admitted that, on May' !,' 1910,' the' "Press" 'published the words • complained' of,. but denied that such printing and publication were malicious. . The words were-not published in relation to plaintiff's profession as trainer,'and did not refer to him. They were ineupulilo of defamutory meaning, and were' jio libel. Plaintiff had-suf-fered nothing by -the: publication in Ins business or in .any other way. . ■ Evidence was given by J. M. Johnston (secretary, of the Mannwatu Racing Club), J. Goring Johnstone, Willis (traveller for Sharland and Co.), Vincent, of Pahiatua, Geo. Price,, horse .trainer, Bernard Coyle, of Palmerston North; and plaintiff.. . "It is riot a case for big damages," said his. Honour, "but there is distinctly a .defamation, and I doubt it' any evidence that can be produced for. defendant will change that view, except as to possible mitigation of damages-..''At present 'I should assess' tho damages at £6."

Mr. Myers then said that in that, case: he would not call any evidence. His _ Honour; then gave judgment- for plaintiff for .£5. This, | he. said, was not .merely nominal'damages, but substantial damages, and indicated that the plaintiff liad properly brought tho action. The newspaper, had published a sccond article, 'and if -it had,-notdone-so there would : have" been , s6me reason for. punishing ,it. It had, however; : . done: nothing which might be considered; a-wilful attempt to slander the plaintiff's character., . Mr.'Myers said that tho-"Press" Compariy.': Had not, tho 'slightest idea of reflecting'on Mr. Shearsb'y,'arid their view was" that tliey had in no way reflected upon: him. . .' ■•'-.■ ( Hia Honour remarked- that plaintiff had dono right 'in bringing the action, and tho' verdict would bo. an. intimation to the public.that Shearsby had hande<r the horses over in good condition, arid that there was no reflection as to his ability as a : ,trainer. He gave judgment for plaintiff, for ,£o, with costs on the lower scale. . ■ • Mr... Myers submitted that the article was in no way defamatory. ' They could not take separate sentences of-the article; it had to be tested as.a whole. - What was the .object of that-article? Was it not intended-as a compliment to I'rice? It could, not' be .disputed that the writer of' the article, was mistaken as 'to' Polymorphous suffering from rheumatism, and'as 'to. the habit .of.-'Boanerges ..falling,' but those mistakes of faot.'could not bo.held defamatory, and it wa£ not. for a moment stated, or 1 even' suggested, that .it..was. •Shearsby's fault. that Polymorphous had rheumatism, or Boanerges the • falling habit. •■•..- :. His Honour said, that, the>article 1 contrasted Price's management of the horses with that of Shearsby's, not only in respect' to these particular horses, but in' respect'to the whole: team. That was the only way in which ho could read the, article. . . '