VERDICT FOR DEFENDANT.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXVIV, Issue 51, 5 February 1916, Page 3

VERDICT FOR DEFENDANT.

SAUNDERS—HERALD LIBEL CASE, The action in which Garnet Hornby Saunders, manager of the Taranaki Amusements, Ltd., proceeded against Henry Weston, proprietor of the Taranaki Herald, to recover £IOOO for al- j leged libel, concluded at the Supreme Court last night, with a verdict for the defendant on all issues, with costs. The ease for the defence was heard, and His Honor summed up in an address lasting nearly two hours. He said tlie plaintiff complained particularly on two passages in the alleged! libel, but the jury had to consider the whole matter. This matter\owed its origin to some advertisements and locals in regard to a picture entertainment in the Good Templar Hall, the manager of which company could not obtain the Theatre Royal for the entertainment. Statements were made in the advertisements that the owners! of the Theatre Royal had declined to: let the theatre to the company, and j later Saunders wrote a letter to the Herald denying that he had made any such refusal. Saunders explained in the letter why he and the picture com-, pany had not come to terms. The evidence showed that all that stood in the way was the matter of 10s for cartage, though if freight had to be paid the amount would he higher. As to the hoardings Latham quite recognised that Saunders was right in not letting the hoardings to the visiting company. The letter was not only a 1 statement of facts, but made a charge. When Matheson, the advance agent of the company, saw this letter, he felt that some reply was necessary, and his reply was the article containing the alleged libel. However much 'Matheson was tempted to reply in terms of abuse, the letter of Saunders would not have justified any defamatory rotort on the part of the Kinemac olor people. In the statement of claim the plaintiff set out words referring to “a scrap of paper,” and the innuendo which plaintiff placed on it was that he had deliberately broken an agreement with the Kinemacolor in the same way as Germany had broken its treaty with Belgium. ’ His Honor held the words were capable of this meaning, but in ruling this he had a certain amount of hesitation. In stating Saunders‘treated an agreement as “a scrap of paper” the writer of the statement implied that Saundeis had broken an agreement without justification. His Honor did not think the innuendo went further than that. It was for the jury to take this phrase and decide if an agreement was broken without cause, and if the jury considered the article was liable to damage a man’s business character they would have to find that the words were dafamatory. If the jury did not think the words were injurious, then they would have to find in favor of the defendant, that the article was not defamatory. The next point in the alleged libel was in regard to the White Slave Traffic entertainment. The article in the Herald stated that after agreeing to give the owner of the White Slave Traffic film 60 per cent., Saunders held the agreement up until he got 50 P cl cent. The innuendo placed by plaintiff on that statement was that alter making an agreement Saunders had hold the other party up and had demanded better terms. His Honor held the words in the article in the Herald wore capable of that meaning, and d the jury was satisfied the words were capable of this meaning, they would have to determine if the words weie defamatory. If the words were defamatory, then they were libellous. Iho jury' would have to consider what effect these words, il defamatm \, would have on plaintiffs character as a business man.

A man was at; liberty to criticise a public man and discuss public matters as freely as lie wished, provided be kept outside the law of libel. In this ease the plaintiff was a part owner ot the two theatres in New Plymouth, and it was important to him that lie should stand well in the estimation of picture people. He had appea e< in a newspaper, .replying to statements made against him, and having made his case a public matter he had to expect a replv to bis statements. Any member of the public was allowed to take part in the controversy, providing his language was fair. »«t the person coming in must not bring anything new into the controversy. 1 here would, for instance, he no jnstilicntion in this ease in the writer rep ying to Saunders to bring in any mreb;vant and outrageous statements. Ibis was a ease of a matter of public interest, ami the jury bad to decide whether the defendant's comment was lair ()l . not. In settling that, there were two matters to be considered. First a number of facts were stated, and soo- | mullv there was the relVrei.ee to “a i scrap of paper.” I t mu A, be shown these facts were indeed facts end not fiction, aiid on this point there bad

! bepn considerable controversy on both j sides. His Honor traced in detail the article complained of, ami the correspondence contained in it. The jury had the letters before them to guide them in deciding if the facts were set correctly in the article or not. His Honoi did not regard agreements in this case in the same light that lawyers did. His Honor then dwelt lor a while on the negotiations between Saunders and the Kinemacolor company, and ' their dispute of the cartage, and he said the jury would have to decide i! 'this was a matter of substance. It I would never do for a man to put up j anything lie liked against someone as ' facts, and then say “now what do yon think of this man!” The statements made as facts would have to lie care j fully,inquired into with the assistance J of the correspondence, to see it the I statements were actual facts. On the question of cartage the visions of Latham and Saunders differed, and it . would he for die Jury :o say which version they would accept. As to the ; arrangement with the White Slave ■ Traffic people, Matheson stated that ! Cook told him the arrangement was 60 Jand 40 per cent. With" Saunders he i'discussed a 50 and 60 per cent, arI rangement and Matheson comimmi- ■. cated with Cook to see if this could jhe arranged. That was the evidence i which was said to show the truth of • 'the statement in the Herald article ■ that Saunders agreed to give the : White Slave Traffic people 60 per 'cent, and then hold the agreement i.p 1 until he (Saunders) got 50 per cent. ; The evidence of Cook could not be oh- ■ tained, but the jury had to consider : if the evidence of Matheson agreed ;'with the statement made in the HerJ aid. It was was in this way that the . jury would have to deal with the qnes- ; tion of fair comment, was out of the

question. There could not he fair comment where there was malice. 11 would he for the jury to say if there was anything irrelevant introduced to the article in order to attack Saunders, and if they found this was so, it would he evidence of malice. There was no evidence whatever against Mr Henry Weston of malice. As regards any servant of his there was chiefly Mr Walter Weston. was given of certain acts done on which it was j agreed there was ill feeling. First of all there was the failure of the Herald to make any reference to the Theatre Royal improvements, and Mr Penn said the reason lor this was because Saunders did not advertise. Saunders had taken no hostile attitude against the Herald in any way, beyond saying, as a man was entitled to, “if you don’t charge less for adver-

tisements I am not going to advertise at all.” The Herald men took up the attitude of not referring to Saunders because he did not advertise. His Honor then touched cm Mr Penn’s reason for not publishing Low’s letter, and the publication of “Townsman's 'letter. These matters would have to he considered on the question of malice. There was also evidence that no apology was given, hut the jury had to ask itself, was any opportunity for an apology given ? Saunders never jfbinted out what was wrong in the Herald article. Before the article was inserted there was the amalgamation of the picture.,iC,y,iupanies, and botlr -Ml Henry Weston and'Mr refused to come in nuclei' the amalgamation. It would he tof.. the jury to decide whether this could ..he considered as malice-. VERDICT. THE ISSUES AND THE ANSWERS. The jury retired at 9.15 p.m. and returned at 10.35 p.m. The issues and the jury’s answers were:— 1 I s the printed matter sued upon defamatory to the plaintiff ? No, “2. (a) Are the assertions of fact contained in it true in substance:-' Yes. (h) Are the comments contained in it laid comments?— Yes. 3. Was the publication ol the printed mutter actuated by malice? — No. (a) On the part of Henry Weston ?—No. (h) On the part of any servant of the defendantr Xo (c) On the part of Matheson ?—No. _1 Treating the printed matter as published by Matheson, was it reasonable defence of his employer’s interests and in reply to the plaintiffs letter?--'Ves. Did Matheson honestly believe the statements contained in it to ho true?—Acs. 0. What damages, if any, do yon award to the plaluiifl ?—No answer. His Hi>nor entered judgment for defendant, with costs according to scale, witnesses’ expenses, disbursements, and second counsel.—News.