VERDICT FOR £850

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2199, 11 July 1914, Page 6

VERDICT FOR £850

FAIRBAIRN V. " OTAGO DAILY TIMES': • JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF THIRTEEN ISSUES

(Eγ Telegraph—Projs Association,) Chrlstohuroh, July 10. Tho case in which Andrew Fairbann claims £1000 damages for alleged libel by the "Otago Daily Times" nowsp.iper was concluded to-da> Sir Jolm Findlay and Mr Wright appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr M'Grcgoi and Mr Stringer for tho defendant. In Jus address, Mr M'Gregor, for tho defence, urged that plaintiff wa-s guilty of impropriety in going on +ho Commission, and had brought tl=o libel on himself by delaying his explanation in answer to the letters in tho papers Sn John Findlay, for the plaintiff, said tho editor had admittod that ho could not justify tho charges in tho leading article, but.counsel heie repeated charges m tho caso The coniucfc of the caso shoned a motive of bitterness, and he insisted that the plaintiff was fightirg tho Merchants' Association, not tho newspaper Ho added that tho editorial was ihe result or party politics ,

His Honour Sums Up. His Honour, in summing up, pointed out that "fake" Vas not a word to be applied to a meiclj accidental omission So fai as tho articlo was concerned, it was difficult to escape from the conclusion that it did contain a chargo of deliberate and tho ovjdonco.showed that theie was nothing to support the- truth of that , charge The Commission had Jiad nothing to do with the omission of Bow- ' yer's references to Eecknt's blue, an.l Jamie v son's supplementary statement, which ho said was handed to 1 Collins, ■was quite Tightly not tieatod a3 evidence If it had been, it uould have *Leen a most linpropei thing, as it had not been read- before the Commission It was clear that it was not part of tho evidence, and as for its exclusion, tho Commissioners had notmng to do ■nith it at all On tho e\idonce, therefore, it was quite clear that none of tho Commissioners had dishonestly suppi essed any part 'of the ewdencc To chargo any member of the Commission ,with suppression of evidence was a serijous libel, and the question wa3 for tho jury to find if the article did make that'charge v If tho jury found, that it did, it would bo a libel upon each and o\ory member/of the Commission, and so, inclusive of Fairbairn If it was considered that some onlj of the Commissioneis were referrcdito, it had to bo considered whether an ordinary, Teadei, acquainted with the .circumstances, would come to the conclusion that Fanbaim was referred to Eligibility of Commissioners. Refening to the complaint against Fairbairn going on the Royal Commission, His Honour pointed out that tho Commission was different from an oidinary Comf. It was Tequircd merely to "investigate and report," and thero was no objection to a man holding strong views going on such a Commission to make investigations It would bo permissible and even desuable to placo a rabid Prohibitionist upon a Royal Commission, and so have tho question probed to the bottom Similarly, although m tho man s own pei6onal interest it might not be desuable, there could be no objection to a man holding strong views about trusts and merchants' associations going on the Commission It waa clear enough that Fairbairn had been engaged in a campaign against tho Merchants' Association, and ev<ju if he went upon tho Commission to expose the iniquities of the Merchants' Association, it would not • seem to him to be improper If, "by -grinding his'own axe," it was meant merely that he went there to attack the Merchants' Association m the mteresti of the_pubhc, there would be nothing improper in it, but if it meant that he aimed at benefiting his' own pocket, then thero would bo; it would lie the place of tho jury to decido whether tho suggestion that tho Hon T Mackenzie nad appointed Fairbairn to the Commission because of business relationships constituted a libel or not Referring to'-tho last letter, His Honour said ( tbat it certainly seemed to bo going very far to say that the plaintifl: actually got the Roj'al Commission appointed in that ho might attack his business competitors In conclusion, His Honour, touching on the question of damages, said that tho jury, if it decided that the lpading article was libellous, was entitled to mulct tho company in heavy damages, 1C was also entitled to take into con--1 Bideration that the company had made .no effort to discover the tiuth about its charges in the inteival before tho trial, but had, up to tho last, maintained that they were true The Issues Answered. The jury returned the following anSHeis to the issues submitted — 1 Does iho ai title of Octobei 18, 1912, chaige membeis oi the Cost ot Living Commission, oi any of them, with having dishonestly suppressed part ot tho of Hie witness Bowycr, and Jamieson"in its official rcpoit ot biich evidence fl —Yos i' 2_lf so, is ihat,diaige true"—No J Is the said aiticle a libel on nlamtnF J —\cs I Does the ktlei s>igned "William R Goidon" accuse' tho plaintiff of having accepted tho office of Commissionci for borne improper puipose o —\es 5 It so, is that assertion true* , —No C Is the said letter a libel on the plaintiff J —lcs. 7 Does the letter signed "Morchant" allege that plaintifl was appointed Commissioner on of business relations between himself and tho Hon Thos Mackenzie '—Yes 8 Was the plaintiff appointed a Commissioner for "that reason?— No. 9 Is the said lettei a libel on the plaintiff—Yes 10 /Does the letter signed "T.R W " allege that the wholo of the said Commission was appointed for the purpobo of enabling the plaintiff to attack his business competitors, and to iurther the interests of lus/nin firm?— Yes II Was the said Commission appomti ed for that purposo ? —No 12 Is the said letter a libel on the plaintiff?—les Damages Awarded. To tho 13th issue, "What damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover from tho defendants," tho jurj Misweied in respect of (a) His first cause of action?— £250 - ■ (b) His second cause of action ? — £250 - (o) Uis-thnd cause of action?— £100; (dVHis fourth cause of action ? — £250,. ■':.,•- -was-cntered for plaintiff, on the mot'on of Su John Findlay, foi £850 according to scale, and mtnesses' expenses ard disbursements, to be h\ed b> the It'egistiar It is understood costs will be between £.200 and £300 .