CLAIM FOR £20,000

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIV, Issue 10291, 28 May 1919, Page 8

CLAIM FOR £ 20,000

TWO SYDNEY NEWSPAPERS AT

ODDS..

An ex parte application was made to Sir William‘Giillen, .O-T.,- Mr Justice Sly. And' Mr Justice Ferguson,' in Banco. at Sydney-recently on behalf, of', the Sun,-. day Times”. Newspaper ■ Company, Ltd., fbr a t rule, nisicalling uport the -Sun' Newspaper, Company, Ltd.,’John Hamilton Forrest,' .and H. : Campbell Jones, printer ’ and - publisher and managing editor ■ ’of the “Sun'* ' newspaper, respectively, ■to show." cause why: they should not be..dealt ■ with for-' alleged 'contemn!, of - court. ■ ■ Mr Shand, K.C., and Mr eurtja (instructed by ‘Mr , Ralph L. Houston) appeared'in support of the application'. 1 ' . It was ; explained by -Mr-Shand that on April Ist a- writ was issued 1 by-the applioants against:. the '-‘Sun”, Newspaper Company,, Lid., for. £20,000; damages for alleged libel. The" declaration' in the action'wafe''filed‘on April-'2sth. '• ‘ The/ Chief Justice remarked that Mr Justice Ferguson, 'for reasons ho had mentioned ,te. him, (did. not desire to take any part bn-tbe l .motion. "The ,'Sunday Times,’ ” continued Mr Shand, .'‘bad ' been/ publishing certain artioies.' which’pUrjtorted to'be by world' celebrities, and signed.by -them, the paper printing- facsimiles -of the ‘ signatures. Prior- to 1 April Ist the ‘Sun’: pnbiished an ' article, .in .' which, it. challenged the authenticity,of the- articles' and, of the signatures, .and-, on that -the writ was issued',. “ Among-bt,hers. which appeared were" artifcles purporting 'to be signed by Field-Marshal - Sir Douglas Haig\ and Lord French. These artioies were challenged.”;- .' ■. , , On Mar sth.an.article was published in thg '‘Sup’*'which, was, thb subject of the .Present application,' and,' which the applicants snbmitted.Vwas ’ ft .contempt of Court; as it was calculated to interfere with the due administration of justice, and to preudice the fair trial of the action, "■■' , The'article complained-of, which- yas headed, "Signed Articles”—the same heading, as appeared to the article sued upon —' "Further Repudiations,’/ end "Marshal . Haig’s Cable,” suggested *hotthe plaintiff company bad received from Field-Marshal •• Haig a cablegram repudi-" ating an, article purporting; to have' t een written by-him, and rebuking the "S.undav .Times’* proprietary. ■ The "Times,”-said (counsel, sued ln"rt,ii T nection ’With - two; matters .that were expressly. dealt; with in the article of May sth> and he submitted that there could be nothing. more prejudicial to the fair trial of r the Action ,wu the publication of statements, alleged to; have been received by; the’ "Sun's” representative in. Paris, which/, would practically entitle the defendant company to a.verdict in the aetioja,' if:'they. Were correct, It simply amounted to .the’publication, in advance, of unsworn evidence, which, was suggested would be' available' for the'. “Sun”, when the action was tried. ■: Affidavits 1 were read, in which Hugh Dobald' Mclntosh.' managing director, and '.CiaudebNOrman Gofbett, managing editor, of ;thc( "Sunday 'Titoes,'*: denied that any such •■cablegram.- as- that; referred to in •the article had . been reciyed by anyone connected With; the'paper.' ,-.lt;was pointed out by- the Bench that the jurisdiction-.of -the court on such t-n application was not exercised very freely Concerning civil proceedings. At (the seme-time.:the,cpurt .was careful to deal with oond.ucf which might have the effect of /prejudicing/public opinion in.criminal eases. ■' V- ’ ..-Being'of opinion that arguable matters -had hepa raised,‘the court granted a ;ule, iriAkihg'it returnable brf March 16th.