LIBEL ACTION.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVI, Issue 212, 7 March 1914, Page 5

LIBEL ACTION.

TQIE.S v. DOMINION". [ CLAIM FOR £3OOO. f Bv Telegraph— Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. ? Mr Justice liosking and a jury of ' .welve began the hearing of the ease in 8 1 tllc Now Zealand Times claimed ° rom the Wellington Publishing Com- ? >any £3OOO for alleged libel in an aricle (published in the Dominion on De- ' ember 11 last. Sir John Findlay, in stating the case ? or Me plaintiffs, said the Dominion, in <- lealing with the Federation of Labor, c lad alleged that the aim and objects r j >f the Federation were criminal and dis- i ronest. The Dominion, said counsel. ] lad admitted that it had often stated ] moll were the objects of the Federation, ( mrt then turned round and alleged that f .he New Zealand Times was the ally of < he Federation. Traversing the defence ( iled, counsel said the Dominion did not f ustify the charge. nor did it say that it ras true. It was said that it was all i lone in the public interest. If it was a •omment on facts, the facts must be ;rue. Again, the comment must be fair, md if it could be shown that the comrient was inspired by maliciousness, then ihc defence would fail. ItJ was difficult ;o make out what the defence really lid mean. The Dominion, having made the charge, (liil not attempt to substantiate it, but merely took shelter behind the vague, defence which he had just read. The onus of proof distinctly rested on the defendant. Mr Myers, for defendants, contended: (1) That the words complained of were not reasonably capable of the innuendo alleged; (2) that the words were not libellous per se; (3) that they were not written of and concerning the piaintifl rompanv and its business. ■ His Honor said that the best course to take would be to grant leave to move for u non-suit, as he could not pretend to give adequate consideration to the matter there and then. Mr Ti. Mnrison, opening for the defence, snid the leading article complained of had not been put- m the bands of a jury. The central fact was that the comment was an election article. The defence said, first.lv. that it was not writing about the company at nil A company was « leeal abstraction, and the position wrs that one lepral restriction whs -uiimr another leffil abstraction. The second contrition was that the words did nht, mean what the plaintiffs said tlicy did: the third contention was that they were not. libellous, and the fourth that thev were a fair comment, on an election. The object of the Dominion article v " s to get Hie Times t.o withdraw its support from the Tied Federation candidate for the livtte.lton sent, and not one thought was civon to the question of or circulation. Knowinc what the Kert Federation stood for. the Dominion had expressed the View that public opinion would not. support the Times m its advocncv of the Federation-, Mr Skerrett replied, and .he Couit adjourned till to-morrow.