WEBBE v. THE AGE.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXVII, Issue 74, 27 November 1913, Page 6

WEBBE v. THE AGE.

"NO ORDINARY LIBEL."

[By Electric Telegraph—Copyright) [United Press Association.]

(Received 11.5 a.m.-. i Melbourne November 27

The libel case was continued."Plamtiff'vs counsel objected to the evidence of the handwriting expert as inadmissible. One of the defences was that the advertisement respecting the death of a child of plaintiff's not long after marriage (althouglwslie had never had a child), was published at the request of Mrs 'Webbe or' her husband.' *'' As far as Mrs Webbe was concerned' that was all right, .but regarding the husband some authority must be shown from the wife to insert the advertisement, before the expert's evidence was admissable.

After considerable argument the judge rejected this evidence. j ; ■ ■ The judge; in summing up, said nobody reading ■ the . advertisement, and having no knowledge of the circumstances, could possibly have ; ; seen libel therein. "How can I direct you ? It can be libellous, but it is for you to say whether it is a libel. The plaintiff's damages seems to me to be limited to the people who are aware of the circumstances. This is not an ordinary libel, wherein one man blackguards another. You have to be behind the scenes in this to measure reasonable compensation for damages. A person's reputation involves a sort of guesswork. Further, this kind of libel has no effect upon intimate friends, as shown by the evidence of the defendant, 'who contended that the advertisement was published at the request of the plaintiff or her husband. That was something like a plea of justification, but it failed." The judge added that he failed to see what defence there was.

The jury awarded'£loo and costs

A stay of proceedings was granted. It is understood an appeal will be lodged. *