NEWSPAPERS SUED

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 49, 22 November 1920, Page 6

NEWSPAPERS SUED

Farmer brings libel action • JURY AWARDS £150 DAMAGES On the ground that .they had published a libel against hun, James I'urniss, of Euawaru, in tho Supreme Court on Saturday, before His Honour Mr. Justice Salmond and a jury of twelve, sought damages from the Wellingibn'Publishing • Company and Messrs. Wilson and Horton (Auckland) in respect of a paragraph ;'appearing in The Dominion, the "New - Zealand Herald," and the "Auckland "Weekly News," the damages asked being lilOOOaneach case—a total of vfiSOOO. Mr. -H. H. Cornish appeared for the plaintiff Furniss. and Mr. A. W. Blair for the'defendant firms. . ■ . Bv.consent the aotions were consoliilared. . The libel, which was admitted by tho defendants, consisted of a mistake in a 'report of court proceedings, the words "mental case" being used instead- of /'medical case" or "surgical case." For the plaintiff, Mr. Cornish said tho originnl publication of xflio libellous ■words had taken place in The Dominion ■of September 9 last, under the heading ' "A Mystery Cleared Up," the paragraph referring w plaintiff, his wife, and another man. The other papers concerned had copied tho original paragraph from The Dominion. Counsel contended tho "publication of I'he words was the result of an-incorrect report, as The Dominion was tho only Wellington newspaper that tad 1 used the words "mental case" in reference to Furniss.

''"'' Tho plaintiff, a farmer and carrier, in evidence, said he was a returned soldier. having enlieted in 1914 with the 3rd . i Reinforcement. 'He had been severely wounded on the Peninsula. In answer :to Mr. Blair, Furniss said he had not noticed', that hie name in the paragraph •published had appeared as ' Furaess.' ' '• :Ho admitted that as Euawaru was a very 'small place, 1 the people there knew him well. - ... Plaintiff also admit-.ed that 'The Dominion had issued a correction • 'and apology before the writ for libel had ! been issued. "They did) it out of policy. and riot for my sake," he added. "They published the apology on their own be-'"-.ialf. There was only a correction pub- • lished. not a personal apology." < ' Two'witnesses gave; evidence on behalf ••'of the plaintiff ns/to having read the '' ■ pargaraph complained of. i *;-,Mr. Blair did not call evidence on be■'half of the defendants. " In his address to the jury, counsel for the plaintiff said that in a case of libel • -.it was not incumbent on the.claimant! to prove actual damage. The jury should consider, he said, what damage was likely to be done in the future, and' the damages should'be assessed by .probabilities. Paltry damages would only add insult ,to injury. The very fact uhnt the 'newspapers cited possessed such large circulations made the case for the plain- " tiff stronger. It was obvious that when a man was referred to as a "mental case" ho was classified as a mndtaan, and t9ie fact that the stigma of insanity lasted a lifetime made such a reference ineffaceable. .' . . A Press that wished to "traffic in private affairs had ~to be accurate. As far as the published apology was concerned, counsel contended that many people who read the in-' criminaiSng .paragraph would not per- •" haps see the apology,, which, after all, was only published in self-preservation. • The newspapers of the country, he concluded, had to exercise care in their V statements. . For the defence, Mr. Blair said that the libel was admitted. It rested with the jury to assess what damages were due to the plaintiff, who was claiming the "modes I .?' sum of . for the wrongful use of one word, the mistake having been corrected as soon as nttcntion was called ' to it. "The defendants had not received an opportunity to apologise," added Mr. Blair. , ™ . , Mr. Cornish: Oh, yes. Mr. Blair! Mr. Blair: Pardon ine, we did not. * The only intimation wo received was that a writ had bean issued. Mr. Cornish: We lefil every door open for an apology. - . ■ ... Mr. Justice Salmond: No, you immedi-

ately issued tho writ! r . •. Continuing, . counsel maintained that / as a' small farmer in a tiny settlement, the l plaintiff could not have received tho same injury by the paragraph as •would have befallen a public map. In the paragraph reference was made to a "Mr. Furness," no Christian name being given, and therefore only people knowing the plaintiff and of his domestic troubles could have established "Fur- • ness" and Furniss as one and the same 'man. Oh no account did the defendants desire to injure a returned soldier. " The misreporiling was obviously acci- ' ■ dental. ' Mr. Blair regretted that Mr. ' Cornish had insinuated that there was, a motive not frank in the apology that ■was published. The defendants would ask that plaintiff should receive no more end no less than he was entitled to. Counsel would not ask for a contemptu- " ous verdict, but the damages inihe case

would, have to be small. In his summing up. His Honour said there were two distinct! actions, one against The Dominion', and the other against the Auckland papers. Tho actions- had been consolidated, and the jury would have to determine the to-inl 6um to be allotted as damages, and the amount each <paper should pay o£ that total, The Dominion first reported the proceedings. As long as i!he report was accurate and fauv no action of libel could be* taken. However, in the present case, the. .words were mis-heard by the reporter, and the journal had no protection from a libel action. The other papers merely copied The Dominion's report. In the preseni; case the charge Insinuated by the paragraph was of insanity, and, bylaw, this was defamatory. The damages had to be based upon a fair and proper estimate. There was no Question of punitivo damages in the case. Such were only allowed in malicious attacks. There should be no question of remunerating the plaintiff. The jury was entitled to form a reasonable estimate as to what the damage done to the plaintiff amounted to. It would bo necessary to discount! a great deal of the imaginative results of tho libel. The apology could bo taken in account in mitigation of damages, and the apology published on October 12 gave no ground for a suggestion that it was not published in t!he proper spirit. After a retirement of about an hour, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for .£l5O damages—,£loo. against The Dominion and .£SO against the "Auckland Herald" and "Weekly News."- ni3 Honour fixed costs against The Dominion on tho lowest) scale, while in the case agninst the Auckland papers cosh were given against the plaintilf on tho highest scale, tho amount awarded by the jury in this case being covered by the amount paid in!(o court by the defendants. Tho defendants in each case had paid .£SO into court by way of damBges. which wag cxnotly the total awarded by the jury.