MONEY-LENDER AND NEWSPAPER.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LII, Issue 102, 27 May 1909, Page 3

MONEY-LENDER AND NEWSPAPER.

A LIBEL ACTION. FARTIIIXG I) AM AGES OBTAINED, By Telegraph.—Press Association. Christchurch, East Xigiit. The libel case of Huston Curlett, of Christchurch, moneylender, against clu 1 Lyttelton Times Company, a claim tor toOI damages, was heard at the Supreme Court to-day before Mr. Justice Dennistoa and a common jury of 12.

The statement of claim set out that plaintiff was a registered money-lender, carrying on business in Christchurch, and that on March 0, 1900, defendant company, in the issue of the Star of that date, published an article headed "Siivlock," which made it appear that plai'itilf had acted in- a grossly unjust, arbitrary, unscrupulous and improper' manner in his transaction of a particular case referred to and in the general conduct of his business as money-lender, and tlmt he was an undesirable person for borrowers to do business with, and that he was in the habit of bleeding his fellows. . In consequence of the said article plaintiff had bu-n greatly injure 1 in his reputation and in his business, and had been brought into public odium, ridicule and contempt. The publication -■ was falsß and malicious, and plaintiff] prayed judgment for £5Ol. For the defence it was admitted that the words set out in the statement -f claim had been printed and published as 1 a leading article in the Star. It «nsj contended that the words did not mean what plaintiff alleged they meant, that they were incapable of that or any defamatory meaning, and that they were not libel. It was further stated that on March 4, 1900, an action was brought in the Christchurch Magistrate's Court in which Samuel Fuiierton Tait was plaintiff and the present plaintiff was defendant, for the recovery of an advance by the present plaintiff to S. F. Tait under certain chatty security or bill of sale, and a full report of' the said action appeared in the Star of March a. The article complained of, it was contended, was published bv the defendant company in the ordinary course of its business as public journalists, and without any malice towards plaintiff, and that it was fair and bonafide comment 011 the said action and evidence given thereon, which were then matters of public interest in Christchurch and neighbourhood. His Honor, in summing up, said that the comment had been based upon facts which were not true, and therefore the comment was unjustifiable; and thc jury should find a verdict for plaintiff with reasonable damages. A verdict was returned for plaintiff •with one farthing damages. The question of costs was held over till tomorrow.

4 In the course of the summing up, the Judge laid it down that when a newspaper commented facts it took the risk of those facts being untrue, and comment on untrue facts could not be justified as fair comment.