HEAVY DAMAGES.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LII, Issue 101, 26 May 1909, Page 2

HEAVY DAMAGES.

AGAINST NORTON'S " IKUlll." " SORDID, MONEX-O'RABBINU AND WICKED." By Telegraph.—Press Association. Christchurch, Last Night. The hearing of tlie libel action, X. VV. i>ti'iiigcr : , K.C., Ci'own Ih-osecutor at Christchurch, v. John Worton, proprietor of " Truth," in which £2OOO damages was claimed, took place at tne Supreme Court to-day before Justice Dennisto'i and a common jury of twelve. Mr. Skerrett appeared for plaintiff'and Mr. Wilford for defendant. The statement of claim set out that on March 14, 11108, at Christchurch defendant published in his newspaper,'called "Truth," certain works .connected with the Bruges case implying ihat plaintiff had been party or privy to the payment of a sum of £4OO for the purpose of suppressing the prosecution of Bruges and of defeating tlie ends of justice, and that plaintiff had been guilty of dishonorable and unprofessional conduct in connection with the prosecution of Bruges on a criminal charge. The publication was false and malicious, and plaintiff' claimed £2OOO damages. Defendant, in tlie statement of defence, denied the material allegations in the statement of claim, and said that if it should be proved that the words complained of were published of and concerning plaintiff', the same were published without knowledge or authority of defendant, defendant being at the time of the publication of the said words resident in England. Defendant denied that the words of the article complained of in the statement of claim were written or published falsely or maliciously or with libellous and 'defamatory sense of meaning, ami, in particular,' defendant denied the particular meanings ascribed lo defendant, set out in tile statement of claim. Defendant also alleged that the article complained of was published by defendant as a'puolic journalist, and the said article was fair and boim-fide comment upon a matter of public interest, and it was printed and published bona-lide and without malice and for tlie,benefit of (lie public, anil not otherwise. Defendant denied that plaintiff' had suffered any damages to his credit, reputation, or character. Evidence relating to facts covered by the article were given by Mr. Stringer, but no evidence was called for tlie defence.

_ Mr. Skerrett, in ,h>s address to the jury, asked what was the reason for the existence of such a paper as "Truth." It would probably be said that the paper-existed to disclose vice, and that it had a high mission. He would ask the jury, was there in the paper any high mi,ssion, any pursuit of respectable ideals? Was there anything but sordid money-grabbing and wickedness within if? "We have," continued Sir. Skerrett. "a high-class press in this country, and I believe you will agree with me when 1 say this country would compare well with many countries of many times the inhabitants in the capacity, courage and independence of its press. Let this sort, ui paper in, and, as sure as I stand here, von will liava a different state of things. Vlou will have a degraded press, and you will have a degraded moral tone, and you will have, an unclean community." In conclusion, Sir. Skerrett said that in the present case leniency would be wasted. There were times when leniency was a virtue, but there were other times when leniency was a weakness and a vice. The present was not a time for leniency. .V crisis hud arrived, and the jury could not escape the responsibility'of snyimr whether that sort of thing was to go on or whether it was to cease.

After a short retirement the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff for ,l\2t)00, the full amount claimed.