ALLEGED LIBEL

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 74, 20 December 1917, Page 8

ALLEGED LIBEL

A SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION. A caso of some interest came before Mr. W. G. ltiddell, S.M., in tho Magistrate's Court yesterday afternoon. It was that of Samuel Kraetzer, of Christchurch, v. H. G. Geddis and Co., proprietors of the "Free Lance." TJie' plaintiff, in his statement of claim, set out-that — (1) Hs is a racecourse detective and as such is employed by the New Zealand Racing Conference and by varicub racing clubs in New Zealand for the purpose of assisting in keeping order on various racecourses in New Zealand. One of. his most important duties in the course of his said employment 'consists in the detection and prevention of tho exercise by bookmakers of their calling on racecourses, such exercises being in breach of the provisions of the Gaming Amendment Act, 1910, and in the case of many racecourses preventing bookmakers from going thereon at all. (2) On or about September 28, 1917, tho defendants falsely and maliciously wrote and published of and concerning the plaintiff in the issue of their weekly newspaper known as "Tho New Zealand Free Lance," published on that date at Wellington, and circulating at Wellington and elsewhere throughout New Zealand, the following words:

I also noticed a well-known racecourse detective being driven to the race in a car owued by a v/eilknown Wellington bookmaker. Hot stuff. Eh? (3) The said words meant that the plaintiff, in. breach of his dut;' us a racecourse detective, was in intimate association with a bookmaker, and was therefore 'rendering himself incapable of impartially performing, or was failing to -perform, or acting improperly in the performance of his duty to his employers as a racecourse detective. The'plaintiff therefore claims from the defendants the sum of £100 damages When the case was called, Mr. A. W. Blair, who appeared for the defendants, said that a week after the original statement was made in the "'Ere® Lance," the writer of "Turf Topics, having found that the statement complained of, which was "contained in a letter to him from a contributor, was wrong, published a statement to tbat effect. Later on, having received a letter from the plaintiff's solicitor, the defendants put in the "Free Lanco of November 9, a full statement by way of explanation and retraction, but unfortunately they had not brought this explanation under the notice of the plaintiff or his solicitors, who bad only seen tho matter a day or two

*Mr. M. Myers, for the plaintiff, said that if the 'retractation in the "T'<ee Lanco" of November 9 had been known, the plaintiff, who did notjlesire to obtain damages from the ''Free Lance" would not have brought his present action. What plaintiff was seeking was information as to _ the name, of the person who had vritten the letter containing the defamatory statement in order that he might brine: an action against that person. But tno ethics of iournalism prevented the newspaper from divulging this information, and therefore, as the Free Lance" had published n full explanation, and as the plaintiff was 'rot. seeking damages from the defendants, the present action would he withdrawn.