£l,000 DAMAGES.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVII, Issue 2960, 10 November 1925, Page 3

£l,ooo DAMAGES.

FOX -GO ODFELLOW CASE.

Auckland, November 7. In the Fox-Goodfellow libel case, the following were the issues submitted to the jury by Mr. Justice Herdman, together witli the answers returned: •

Did defendant on or about July 14, 1925, referring to the plaintiff’s period of war service, say to Charles Parker concerning the plaintiff the. following: “Have you ever heard that Fox was reported twice as a spy,” meaning thereby that plaintiff was a base and traitorous character, and had committed a seri ous crime? —The answer was in the affirmative, damages on this issue being assesed at £3OO. Did defendant on or about the date aforesaid speak and publish to Parker or plaintiff in the capacity as organiser of the Dairy Farmers’ Union the following words: “I have reason to believe that Fox is here in the employ of the'proprietary concerns. I’ll tell you who it is— Nathan’s,” meaning thereby that plaintiff was base, fraudulent, and untrustworthy, and unfit to be employed by the Dairy Farmers’ Union? —No answer.

Did defendant on or about, the date aforesaid publish to Parker or plaintiff in reference to his war service writing containing words to the following effect: “William. Ranstead reported Fox to the authorities as a probable spy. A very clumsy policeman was put on to shadow Fox, who suddenly became very careful, and did not give himself away. William R. next met Fox at Gallipoli, where Fox was engaged as a cook at headquarters This was a position where he could get a lot of useful information. William R. reported him again, with the result that he was shipped back to New Zealand,” meaning that plaintiff was of a base and traitorous character, and had committed crime? —Yes. Damages on this issue were assessed at £350. , Did defendant on or about July 2, 1925, speak and publish to J. G. Wynyard the following, words: “If Fox had his rights he would have been shot twice as a spy,” this statement having reference to plaintiff’s war service? —No. Did defendant on or about July 14, 1925, publish to John B. McKinney, in reference to the war service of plaintiff, writing containing the following words: “William Ranstead reported Fox to the' authorities as a probable spy. A very clumsy policeman was. put on to shadow Fox, who suddenly became very careful, and did not give himself away. William R. next met Fox at Gallipoli, where Fox was engaged as a cook at headqurters. This was a position where he -could get a lot of useful information. William R. reported him again, with the result that he was shipped back to New Zealand/’ meaning thereby that plaintiff was a base and traitorous character, and had committed a crime? —Yes. Damages were assessed at £350.

If the answer returned to any of the foregoing questions is “Yes,” then did defendant publish the matter complained of in pursuance of his duty to the New Zealand Cooperative' Dairy Company, Ltd., and in bona fide belief of the truth thereof, and with an honest desire fo protect members and creditors of the company, and to persons who had an interest for duty corresponding to that of defendant, to receive it; and is it a fact that it was not published to anyone without such interest and duty?: No, by a majority of 10 to 2. Did he publish the matter complained of maliciously?—Yes, by a majority pf 10 to 2. What damages (if any) is plaintiff entitled to. recover? —£1000. The jury retired shortly after 6 o’iclock, and after having dinner returned to the Court to consider their verdict. At, 10 o’clock they returned to the courtroom, and asked that certain portions of the evidence relating to the allegations should be read to them for the purpose of refreshing their memories. Wlhen this had been done by His Honour, they again retired, returning with a verdict at 11.10 p.m. Counsel for plaintiff, Mr. Seymour, formally moved that judgment be entered in accordance with the jury’s verdict. Mr. Nortlicroi't said that Sir John Findlay, leading counsel for defendant, had several points to raise, and he asked that all points be reserved.

The case was adjourned for further consideration.