REV. HOWARD ELLIOTT.

North Otago Times, Volume CVII, Issue 17748, 21 March 1927, Page 3

REV. HOWARD ELLIOTT.

Press Asaociation.;

LIBEL ACTION FAILS.

xPer

i { WELLINGTON, March 18. j hip pocket, in which it is believed you carry an automatic reI volver. No man is allowed to iake j the law into his own hands. oi- ^ -n l man is justified in carrying ar ifnatic pistol on his person. ; "s against the law. We ask in tuni, sir what sectarian influence, if any, is brought to bear enabling you to carry a pistol, which we refuse to believe." The above passages appeared in an "Open Letter to the Rev. Howard Elliott" in the issue of the New Zealand Critic" of November 9, 1926 and were the grounds on which Mr Eliott sought to recover £100 damages from the Critic Newspaper Proprietary, Ltd. Reserved judgment in the ease was given hy Mr Page, S.M., in the Court to-day. "PlaintifFs says the words and statements above-mentioned and the imputations contained therein are false and malicious, and were published without lawful justification or excuse," said the Magistrate. "Counsel for the plaintiff, in opening, conceded that it was his client's practice to carry a revolver, and counsel produced the weapon in Court, a five-chambered, thirty-two bore revolver. Counsel also produced the certificate Of registration and license to carry a firearm issued under the Arms Act, 1921,

and renewed from year to year to February 16, 1927. The only evidence called on behalf of plaintiff was that of a gun expert. This wiiness deposed that the weapon was j known in the trade, not as an autoi matic pistol, but as a Revolver. At " the close of plaintiff's ease counsel ! applied for a nonsuit. j "The question 'is whether there is j a ease to answer. Counsel contends j the newspaper article contains a J statement of innuendo that plain- | tiff is guilty of a crime punishable | hy imprisonment, in that he carries ! a firearm without being licensed to j do so, or that he carries a firearm j ; of a type the carrying of which is i | absolutely prohibited by law. j "With regard to the first, I do j not tlJnk the article ,can fairly be j interpreted as alleging^-that pjainj tin carries a firearm without being I the holder of a license. No part of I the article in words makes such an j allegation and in respect of oue of j these passages complained of, name- | ly, that regarding sectarian influ- ! ence. the only reasonable interpre- ! tation is that plaintiff has obtained | some peraiission or license enabling j him to carry a firearm. I "With regard to the second contention counsel for plaintiff conceded that if the article had alleged merely that he carried a revolver. then, as such statement is in fact true," it would not be action'able. I do not think that article really alleges or suggests anything more than this. It is true that under "the Arms Act, 1920, it is made an offence to be in possession of an automatic pistol as defined in the Act. j No power is given by the Act for granting a license to carry such a pistol, though licenses or permits for the carrying of other Sorts of pistols may he granted. Counsel contends that the jf article statee or implies that the typ$ of pistol carried hy the plaintiff is one absolutely prohibited by the Arms Act, but I do not think this contention of counsel s a reasonable interpretation of the article, nor do I think | that it would be so understood by j readers. The. firearm carried b.y the | plaintiff is a pistol or revolver, and | is automatic in its action. I think j the language used is describing the | firearm which plaintiff admittedly I carries is fair. / f "I find, therefore, that the state: i ment or iniplications set out by | plaintiff in his statement of claim | are in substance and in fact true, and that, therefore, plaintiff's claim must fail." Judgment accordingly was given ' for the defendant company with costs to scale, £5 12s. j