NEWSPAPER LIBEL

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 141, 11 December 1929, Page 19

NEWSPAPER LIBEL

ECHO OF MURDER TRIAL

SMALL AMOUNT AWARDED

(By Telegraph.)

(Special to "The Evening Post.'1)

AUCKLAND, This Day.

! Damages of £10 were awarded against' ''Sun" Newspapers, Ltd., in a libel action heard in the Supreme Court before 3kr. Justice Smith yesterday. The cjaim arose out of the publication by the ••'Sun" on 3rd August of an account iqf a disturbance in Nelson street in which Thomas Lenvy -was fatally (Stabbed. ! The plaintiff was James Anderson Gallott (Mr. Matthews), who claimed from the "Sun" (Mr. Northerol't) £200 damages for libel said to bo contained in this account. Tho article was under the heading "Fracas During Drinking Bout,''* and tho words complained of Tvore as follow:—

"It is stated that the men had all peen drinking together, i "It is stated that Leavy and the four other men, James Gallott, David Caraody, Frederick Cole, and CafErey, had arrived at 119, Nelson street early in the evening with a quantity of liquor. They had all been drinking together and Caffrey became troublesome.

"Gallot and CafErey were frequent visitors to the place."

The plaintiff claimed that as a result of this publication his means of livelihood had been seriously impaired. The article was false and defamatory and meant that he had been guilty of excessive drinking of intoxicating liquors and that he associated with a person charged with murder. He had been much injured in credit and reputation and had been exposed to contempt, scandal, and odium.

■ The defence denied that the words wore intended to mean that Gallott was given to excessive drinking, and claimed that the words were incapable of the meaning given to them or of auy other libellous or actionablo moaning.

His Honour said where innuendo was alleged a : precise proof was required. He was not satisfied in the first place that the words, being ordinary English .words, did- convoy any other moaning than that contained in the article, and if there were innuendo it had not been proved as an innuendo should be proved. He came to the conclusion that the jplaintifE' was thrown back on the article itself and its primary meaning. His Honour held that on the. face of the article the headline "Fracas During Drinking Bout" must mean that Gallott had been engaged in a drinking bout. That was an item on which the plaintiff might rely if he was a sober person, and as justification had not been pleaded it must be concluded that he was a sober individual. Apart from that there was evidence that he was a sober man. Thero was no allegation in the article that the plaintiff had been engaged in any fracas or brawl. Tho article did not on its face either impute any improper association to Gallott. On a fair reading of the article it did state that Gallott had been engaged in a drinking bout. He was presumed to oe a sober man and therefore, his Honour said, he must find that thero had been some reflection on Gallott 'a character. : Gallott clearly had been going to engage in drinking, but whether,it would have developed into a bout or not the Court did not state.

Regarding the amount of damages his Honour said that in his opinion the plaintiff was entitled only to such sum as would indicate the legal right which f J?n en "L fringed. He assessed this at £10. Costs were allowed on the Magistrate's Court scale.