APPEAL COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LII, Issue 221, 23 October 1909, Page 2

APPEAL COURT.

"TKUTH'S" TUOUISLES. Hy Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Friiluy. On the Court of Appeal resuming, judgment was delivered in re Quinn. Applicant's motion for admission as n solicitor was adjourned until July .' 11)10, with liberty to apply again then upon the same material ami with liberty both to himself and to the Auckland Law Society to adduce further evidene.'. Co«ts in the menntime were reserved. The Appeal Court is hearing the Norton v. Stringer appeal from a refusal by Judge Dcnniston to grant a new trial in the ' action for libel wherein Mr. Stringer, K.C., had recovered £2OOO damages from Mr. John Norton, proprietor of Truth. The grounds of the application were: Damages excessive, that counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. Skerrett, K.C., had, in addressing the jury, inflamed them by attacking the character of the paper, 'and misdirection by the Judge in not defining what a libel was, and in directing the jury that it was a question whether the libel was intended or not. Jlr. Dunn appeared for the nppellnnt, and Mr. Skorrett, K.C, and Mr. Wright for the respondent. Mr Dunn proceeded to argue that the jury was induced (o give excessive danmgo's by Mr. Skerrett's introducing matters not in the evidence. He then quoted portions of counsel's address denouncing the general character of Mr. Norton's paper. There was, he said, no evidence in support nor would such evidence have been admitted. Counsel quoted authorities at great length to show that if mat. t<T< commented on were not in evidence a pew trial would be granted.

Wellington, Last Night. Argument in the case Morton v. Strainer continued all day. Mr. Dunn contended tliat Iho putting in of t!ie paper in which the article eomplained of was published, did not make the whole of the contents evidence, hut only the article itself.' Tt was not therefore permiiswible for counsel to refer to the paper generally. The .Tudgp in the Court below had misdirected the jury in that lie had laid down the test o' libel or 110 libel as being whether til' 1 writer of th c article had intended to libel plaintiff, whereas the intention of the writer was irrelevant, and the soliquestion for thc jury was whether a reasonable man would think it defamatory.