THE ELLIOTT CASE

Hokitika Guardian, 17 December 1924, Page 2

THE ELLIOTT CASE

£lO DAAIACES A AWARDED. fIJY TELEGRAMI —I*EH I'KESS ASSOCIATION.] AVELUXDTOX, December 1(3. Judgment was given by Air Page cS.AL. lor plaintiff to-day. awarding £lO damages, in the libel action. Howard •Elliott v. ‘N.Z. Worker” and Joint (Mover, publisher, claiming £IOO damages for an alleged defamatory statement published in the “AVorkor” on July JO, in the report of an address by Air H. E. Holland, ALP. In the judgment, the Magistrate said that the two grounds of defence raised were fair comment on a matter of public interest, and the truth of the allegations complained of, that plaintiff was seditionary and disloyal. In regard to the first ground of defence. the' Magistrate held that fair comment must he an expression of opin- v inn. not nit assertion of fact. Some of the defamatory passages in the article' were admittedly not really expressions c.f opinion, hut statements of fact. - The Alagistrnte held therefore, the defence ot fair comment on tl matter of public' interest could not lie maintained. x. On the second ground of defence, defendants, relied for proof of the allegations on the contents of certain articles published by. or with, the concurrence of the plaintifl. and certain other matters elicited from plainlill ill cross-examination, or proved, at the hearing relating to plaintiff's past lions. ‘‘The passages in these ami pamphlets are hitter, intolerant, sectarian attacks on adherents of an- • other Church. They arc calculated to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility lii'twc'i'ii the different classes of His .Majesty’s subjects, ami some ol them are in my opinion, seditionary within the meaning of Section 118 of the (‘rinu's Act. 1908 ’’

His Worship held, however, that in order tu succeed, dclendant must provo the •truth of all the allegations complained of, and after careful consideration. he was of opinion that the second, defence had not been established. “Looking at the whole of the circumstances. I propose to award the plaintiff the sum of CIO h.v way of damages with costs on that amount.” Judgment was entered for plaintiff with costs £4 18s.