LIBEL CLAIM FAILS

Evening Post, Volume CXXVIII, Issue 118, 15 November 1939, Page 6

LIBEL CLAIM FAILS

ACTION BY M.P.

JURY'S LONG RETIREMENT

By a majority of ten to two, a jury, in the Supreme Court last evening, ' after a retirement of four and a quarter hours, returned a verdict for the defendants in the action brought by John Robertson," M.P. for Masterton, secretary of the New Zealand Motion Picture Exhibitors' Association and editor of the Association's bulletin, against Garnet Hornby Saunders, New Plymouth, and Harry Thompson, Napier, motion picture exhibitors, alleging libel, The claim was for £1000 damages. Prior to an election last July of two independent exhibitors to the Film Control Board, a list of the candidates, with biographical notes, ■was published in,the bulletin, but because of two sheets of copy becoming stuck together, the last two names, those of the defendants, wefre omitted. The defendants immediately sent out an open litter to voters in the election, and it was because of passages in that letter that the action was brought. Mr. Justice Johnston presided over the hearing, which lasted three days. Mr. J. S. Hanna appeared for the plaintiff, Mr. O. C. Mazengarb for Saunders, and Mr.. John Mason (Napier), for Thompson. i Summing up to the jury, his Honour said that'a man's character and.reputation were his first and best asset, and every man -was entitled to have his reputation protected. ' That- principle was as old as English law, and libel was an attack on. that right, oi the individual. Any false attack on the reputation or character of a man was libellous if put in writing, and the person who uttered those false words was liable in damages.' It was no answer that it was thought the words were true,- although that might be given in mitigation of damages. In this case he had decided that the words were used oVi a privileged occasion; that was to say, they were made to people having the same interests as the person who uttered. theih.7 In order to be actionable, there-1 tore, it Ttiiust' be proved, that they were utferid maliciousiyi: In, an Ordinary action for; libel,: when there was no privilege; it was sufficient , if < the statement was uhtrue. The presumption then was that there had been malice, but on a privileged occasion it was not sufficient that the,.woi'ds Were untruey-the plaintiff had to prove to the satisfaction of the jury*j that there had been malice on r;'.the part of .the defendants. The best proof1 he "could give was'Tthat the defehd.ahts; did., not honestly believe when "they published the .words that they were tiv.e. '■';.

His Honour said he had held that, the words used were capable of being libellous. .. If so,, the qi^stion was whether-they : were defamatory of the plaintiff on tKat occasion. There, was little doubt that someone was accused of deliberately .suppressing the names of candidates in Mh- election.. From the defence there was7.ho real Suggestion .tti&t the words were.not libellous —it•,■ Was ;;cla[rmed that7they did. not refef to Robertson. The only difficulty was the question of- . identifi«ation. which was; one" for the! juj-y. It was -agreed 7. that ; the words ;. werle untrue So far as they referred, to Robertson. There was no suspicion of anything against Robertson; everyone had gone to the trouble of saying how capable he was and how much his. services wej^^uedffy*-; '':-XyyXXy.x.'- . .-.. ....;. ■.. -The jury, which retired at 4.46 p.m. and returned at 9 o'clock, , found, by ten votes to two, that the words complained of were, not defamatory of the plaintiff. The sec-, ond issue/which asked that, if they were defamatory* were the defendants actuated by malice iri the sense of some improper or indirect motive, was unanimously answered; in the nega s tive, as was a third,issue, which asked1 what damages was" the plaintiff; -exit titled; to recover.. 7.77;' ' Mr. Harina was'-".aU'owed; ;ten7 days, in which to moye any ,ttiotioii''he .thought necessary. 7 7 •'.';;•> ..;