FARTHING DAMAGES

Hokitika Guardian, 19 August 1933, Page 6

FARTHING DAMAGES

AUSTRALIAN JURIES’ AWARDS

VERDICTS AND MEANINGS

Though the farthing i 6 not iri circulation in Australia., juries in civil 'action's:, continue to- follow the prac-

tice, which grew up in English Courts, •of awarding the lowest coin of the British -realm as contemptuous or ignominous , damages. Such a verdict was-given by a jury in a divorce suit in a Melbourne Court. Mr Justice

Macfarlan . ordered that the farthing be, paid . into Court, but the order, was necessary only to complete Iris judgment. Officials ' of the Supreme Court in Melbourne cannot recall a case- in .which the verdict has been obeyed. It is merely the- jury’s way of express' ( ing its contempt for the amount or damages or injury which an aggrieved party, in its opinion, has suffered. Though there is no record in the Victorian Courts of a person mulct in one farthing damages ever haring paid the coin into Court, any litigant who chose to abide by the Judge’s order would have -little trouble in obtaining the. exact amount. The farthing lii.’s never been circulated in Australia, aiid it is not mentioned in the schedule of coins attached'- to the Coinage . Act, but as a curio ,is it. coriixnon. Officials at-, the Mint, estimate that there must be thousands of farthings in curio, shops and private homes. Some years ago the Blank of New South Wales inported £5 worth—4 800 of them—for a dealer in coins in Sydney.

The meaning of verdicts for contemptuoris damages, whether the amount -be a farthing, a shilling or 20is, is not. always clear, and Judges and counsel are often puzzled by them. A jury may mean that an alleged •s’auder, or libel many be so nearly true that ignominious damages will suffice; or the farthing may be given to indicate the juryls opinion that an action should never have been brought. Contemptuous damages also may he awarded to establish a right, as in a trespass, .or to vindicate a character.

;■ It,is said that there is still much doubt in law about the effect of a verdict for contemptuous damages. Though juries may not realise it when they return such a verdict, it may have, and often has, in some kinds of litigation, the effect of depriving a successful party of his right to recover his .costs from the other side. “It depends upon the Judge,” says a barrister; “but the normal rule is that contemptuous damages do not in themselves amount to good cause for depriving a plaintiff of his costs.”