A LIBEL ACTION.

Hokitika Guardian, 28 June 1924, Page 2

A LIBEL ACTION.

IXVKIICARGILL CASK. t* IXVKIU’AHGILL. June 20 An action for libel was heard in tbe Invercargill Magistrate’s Court to-day, when John Itonald Hamilton proceeded against the "Southland Xi-ws" Company, claiming L'7ill respect of a letter published in the "News” some months ago. In opening the ease for the plaintiff Mr Russell saiil that a letter appeared on December 7 last in the ".Southland News,” which appeared on the main page in prominent type, as follows; “It is rather amusing to read the advertisement of the Producers’ Committees* scheme, wherein they recommend Mr J. 11. Hamilton as being the safest, soundest and most experienced man' to administer the Dairy Control Act. We remember I")'.’.' ‘safe and sound’ he was when a member of the County Council, when he overdrew his account by LTGOf), and how-a good deal of money was wasted on jobbing andfavouritism. We remember the castigation he got from a Judge of the Supreme Court for his bumptious arrogance and ignorance, bow lie had to climb down and apologist*. and come to heel like a whipped cur while representing Awartta in Parliament. We don’t forget these things and we don’t want again tu blush lot sham'- at the behaviour of a representative on the control hoard. Let us leave Mr Hamilton, where he rightly belongs, in the lap of oblivion, and vote for a gentleman whose record we know for at least twenty years to he (Hire and eli-nn and progressive, and commanding the confidence and respect of the public and the many interests for which he has been acting-secretary for all those years.” For Mr Hamilton, Mr Russell chnmotorised the letter as one id the most scurrilous, malicious, vindictive letters seen in a public newspaper. Tbe letter was put in under tin* nmn de plume o!

"Dairyman” on the eve ol the election for the Dairy Control Hoard, lor which plaintiff 1 was a candidate.

The defence stated that the letter was published in good faith. As pl.i’.-i tiff’s evidence showed defend ants 1 ad not been asked for an apology. I !.•* paper had been supporting the dr.r.» farmers’ candidature, in which Mr Hamilton was included, as opposed to the promoters' candidature, i’l’d .i’ev thus hud a moral duly to perl n-n to both sides and. through the corn- q. mdelice columns, to give supporters < I the opposite forces a chance to i-xptesS their views, tints being ta.ir to tbe po-i----lie. Further, it was necessary for tie plaintiff to rely on innuendo in making elaim. and counsel for the dt fence was quite sure that the efleet of tlnlet ter on the general pttblie would not be so bad as Mr Hamilton might think. The Magistrate i-haracterised the letter as a solid libel, and said it showed hatred. malice and spite. Ihe "Xeus should have published a prominent apology. Judgment was given for the full amount with costs.