THE SUMMING UP

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 10609, 7 June 1920, Page 6

THE SUMMING UP

JUDGE DIRECTS THE JURY.. Tho publication of the words corns plained of, was admitted, said Mr Justice Edwards in his brief summing up of the case- It was admitted that the charge complained of was untrue. Tho duty of the jury in regard to those words, therefore, was mainly tho consideration os to whether, or not they were defamatory. Defamation was defined by all text-book ''"Titers as follows: ''Written words which cxjtoso tbo plaintiff to hatred, contorapt, ridicule, or _ obloquy, wlliolr tend to injure him in his profession or trade, or cause him to be shunned or avoided by his neighbours, are libellous.'’ The jury had tp consider Whether the words complained of wen or were not such as to he lihellou: within that definition. They mus' consider that first as an abstract quer tion, apart from tho plaintiff. Sup posing they had been spoken of anybody else, would they be libellous'. That, he thought, was clear. If the ,wcro satisfied that word# wen

libellbns, iTietr concern was' then 'With tho question of damages; and it rested entirely with them whether they Rave "plaintiff ’.a farthing tor 1 £IOOO. Some mention had been made of an apology. In regard to apology, the law was that a person who-had published defamatory, matter might, subject to certain conditions, publish an apology with a view to mitigate damages; but there was no suggestion at nil that the defendant had complied with those conditions. And, apart, from statute, the defendant might anolqoiso-and plead that ho had .shown fils contrition in a way to minimise damages. But tho defendants, while admitting that the statement was untrue. saifl they would not apologise—“Wo 'decline to offer an apology, and for these reasons.” -It was for tho-jury to consider the sufficiency or otherwise of these, reasons . for * not apologising. Certainly, there was no actual apology in the sense that you express contrition _ and say, “I anf very sorry I did it.” Sufficiency or insufficiency was for the jury to consider ; and that was really all ho had to say about the matter.—. They had heard” a. great deal from .counsel for both parties, and it was for them to judge between tho parties.' If the words wore, libellous, then tho: plaintiff was entitled to something, however Small; and if might be .something ns largo as they pleased, not exceeding.' £IOOO. But if iher decided the Statement was. not libellous, then tho defelfdant was entitled to a verdict; but to do that they must come to the conclusion that these charges written about anybody .else would not bring him into, contempt, hatred, ridicule, or obloquy Or cause; him to be shunned or-avbided by--bis neighbours. VERDICT FOR £IOO.

Retiring at 12.35 p.m. to consider their verdict, tho jury returned at five minutes past -one, and the foreman stated that their verdict was,,that they found die published .statement ■libellous,,, and awarded....the, .plaintiff .£IOO.. damages. . , His .'. Honour granted tho plaintiff costs., according to-«eale,-lor .«no;day’s bearing. - - 1 •