Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

ONE FARTHING DAMAGES.

STAGPOOLE v. MANAWATU STANDARD.

Palwkrston N., June o

The action of Stagpoole v. Nash and Coombe, of the Manawatu Standard, for ,£IOOO damages for alleged libel in the publication of a statement oi defence in plaintiff’s case against Pirani and Co., in which the latter claimed justification, was heard before Mr Justice Chapman aud a jury of twelve today. Mr C. A. Loughnan appeared tor plaintiff, aud Sir John Findlay and Mr innes tor delendaut.

The evidence oi Mr Hewlett, deputy registrar of the Supreme Court, was to the effect that defendant’s chief reporter had asked him for a statement of defence for publication, and he had refused it, and showed him Mr Justice Williams’s judgment in a Dunedin case, that publication would be contempt ot Court.

Tbe registrar (Mr Thomson, S.M.) had also warned the reporter and approved of the refusal of permission to copy tbe document, referring him to the solicitors for plaintiff. These were telephoned to, and they refused, but a statement ol deleuce was subsequently published with a statement of claim containing the alleged libel written in to make it clear.

Sir John Findlay took the point that pleadings were proceedings within the privilege of the 1910 Act, and contended that it was the custom of papers to publish indications ot them. He held that plaintiff could have asked his Honour to deal with the Standard for contempt, but not to seek damages tor libel as they were seeking damages against the proprietors of the Fielding Star in that Court.

His Honour held that reference to proceedings in the 1910 Eibel Act did not afford privilege to publication of pleadings, which only became privileged when published as part of a report of an actual action in Court. He held, therefore, that defendants were not covered by privilege. The jury, after three-quarters of an hour’s retirement, returned a verdict of libel against defendant, but allowed one farthing damages.

His Honour said that he would follow the usual custom in such cases of not allowing costs.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/MH19120608.2.12

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIV, Issue 1054, 8 June 1912, Page 3

Word count
Tapeke kupu
341

ONE FARTHING DAMAGES. Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIV, Issue 1054, 8 June 1912, Page 3

ONE FARTHING DAMAGES. Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIV, Issue 1054, 8 June 1912, Page 3

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert