ALLEGED LIBEL

Dominion, Volume 20, Issue 65, 10 December 1926, Page 12

ALLEGED LIBEL

HOWARD ELLIOTT v. “CRITIC” ONE CLAIM ABANDONED, BUT THREE OTHERS MADE A claim for £2OO for alleged libel against the “New Zealand Critic,” made by the Rev. Howard Elliott, Dominion secretary of-the Protestant Political Association, came before the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, when Dlr. R. H. Boys, who appeared for plaintiff, stated that he wished the action to be. discontinued. The statements objected to by plaintiff were published in an open letter to him in the “Critic” on November 9. They were:—(a) “. . . your hip pocket, in which it is believed you carry an automatic revolver”; (b) “No man is allowed to take the law into his own hands, and no man is justified in carrying an automatic pistol on his person; it’s against the law”; and (c) “We ask, in turn, sir, what sectarian influence,, if any, is brought to bear enabling you to carry a pistol, which we refuse to believe.” Mr. 11. D. Hoggard, who appeared for defendants, said that his clients had made application to have the matter dealt with in the Supreme Court, so that the truth or otherwise of the allegations regarding the carrying of the revolver could be ascertained, and in order that plaintiff might be interrogated by counsel Plaintiff, however, had filed a notice of discontinuance. He therefore asked for substantial costs, considerable trouble having been gone to in preparing the defence. Mr. Boys opposed the application for substantial costs, but. said that his client was prepared to pay a reasonable amount, in view of the fact that he had had the action discontinued. The case was struck out by Mr. w. G. Riddell, S.M., who allowed costs, £3 35., against plaintiff. Later in the day Mr. Boys, acting on behalf of the Rev. Howard Elliott, issued three writs for £lOO each against Maurice Goldsborough, editor of the “Critic,” G. W. Slade, Ltd., the printer and jublisher of the paper, and the New Zealand Critic Proprietary, Ltd.