LIBEL ACTION.

Taranaki Daily News, 4 February 1916, Page 6

LIBEL ACTION.

THEATRE MANAGER AGAINST NEWSPAPER. CASE AGAINST THE HERALD, CLAIM FOR '£loo9 DAMAGES. A case involving allegations of libel, in which two well-known citizens of New Plyj/outh are concerned, commenced at the Supreme Court yesterday. The plaintiff is Garnet IJornby Saunders, manager of the Taranaki Amusements, Ltd., and late of the Empire Picture Co., and the defendant is Henry Weston, proprietor of the Taranaki Herald. The ease has aroused considerable interest, and the" body of the Court was filled , throughout the hearing. The statement of claim set out two causes, of action and a further alternative cause. The first cause of action, after describing in paragraphs 1 and 2 the plaintiff and the company, continued:— (3) As the manager of the Empire Picture Company the plaintiff had and has charge of the letting from time to time of the Theatre Royal. (4) The defendant is the proprietor, printer and publisher of the newspaper known as the Taranaki Herald, which said newspaper circulated in New Plymouth, and at numerous other places in the provincial district of Taranaki, and elsewhere in New Zealand. (5) In the issue of the said newspaper of the second day of October, 1915, the defendant printed and published of and concerning the plaintiff in his capacity aforesaid the following:—

KINEMACOLOR AND THE THEATRE. DISPUTED TERMS. "A member of the Kinemaeolor Company gives below the company's version of the above incident. . . It will be seen that Mr. Saunders himself broke off the negotiations for the Vheatre Roval on August 24. . , . On July IC, Mr. Staveley, manager for Kinemaeolor, wrote offering to rent the theatre for two nights, or, failing a straight-out rental, to play on a sharing basis, Mr-. Saunders to receive 33 1-3 per cent, of the gross takings and provide the usual 'locals.' To this Mr. Saunders replied on July 21: 'The terms you offer, viz., 33 1-3 per cent., we do not consider equitable, but would show your attraction on an equal 50 per cent, basis.' Mr. Staveley wrote again on July 24 offering 40 per cent, as Mr. Saunders' share, a reply as follows (by telegram dated July 29) being received: 'One night fifty only possible terms here.' Seeing that New Plymouth was considered a good show town, in addition to fitting in well with their movements, 'Mr. Staveley wrote on August 19 agreeing to the exorbitant demand of 50 per cent. A tour to fit in with New Plymouth was booked and everything settled, when the following letter from Mr. Saunders, dated August 24, came to hand: *I thank you for yotir offer contained in letter of 19th re Kinemaeolor programme, but regret that we cannot see our way clear to show films here.' . . . From the foregoing it will be seen that Mr. Saunders has run hia head against a brick wall in his explanation of his treatmenf of_ 'a scrap of paper.'" . (6) The defendant meant thereby that the plaintiff had entered into an agreement with the said Mr. Staveley, or with the proprietor or manager of the Kinemaeolor Company, to let him have the said theatre on certain terms, and has thereafter refused to perform such agreement, and had deliberately and dishonorably ignored and broken the said agreement, and had treated the same in the same manner as Germany had ignored, broken and treated its treaty or agreement in regard to Belgium.

(7) The said publication was false and malicious. On these grounds the plaintiff claimed from the defendant the sum of £SOO damages. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION. , In the course of the second cause of action the plaintiff said that in the issue of October 2, 1915, of the Taranaki Herald was published the following:— "•Mr. Saunders says the highest 'cut' ever given a travelling picture show is 40 per cent. How is it, then, that he agreed to give the owner of the 'White Slave Traffic' film 60 per cent., and then when the agent arrived in town held him (the agent) up till he (Saunders) was allowed 50 per cent, for his share? ..." The plaintiff states that the defendant meant thereby that the plaintiff, after entering into an agreement with the .owner of the ''White Slave Traffic" film had demanded better and more favorable terms than tnose agreed upon, and had refused to perform and carry out his agreement unless and until such better and more favorable terms were given to him, and that the plaintiff had acted unfairly and . dishonorably. The plaintiff contended that the said publication was false and malicious, and he claimed £SOO damages. ALTERNATIVE CAUSE OF ACTION. As an alternative cause of action the plaintiff repeated liis statements or the publication in the Taranaki Herald of the portions set out in the first and second causes of the (action, stating that the defendant meant thereDy:— (a) That the plaintiff had entered into an agreement with the said Mr. Staveley or with the proprietor or manager of the Rinemacolor Company to let the said theatre on certain terms and thereafter refused to perform such agreement and had deliberately and dishonorably ignored and broken the said agreement, and had treated the same in the manner as Germany had ignored, broken and treated its treaty or agreement in regard to Belgium. (b) That the plaintiff after entering into an agreement with the owner of the "White Slave Traffic" film had demanded better and more favorable terms than those agreed upon and had refused to perform and carry out his agreement unless and until such better and more favorable terms were given to him, and that the plaintiff had acted unfairly and dishonorably. The plaintiff claimed that the said publication was false and malicious, and claimed £IOO9 dnm»«ej,

THE CASE FOR THE PLAINTIFF THE OPENING. His Honor Mr. Justice Hosking presided. Mr. M. Myers, of Wellington, and Mr. J. C. Nicholson appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. C. P. Skerrett, K.C., of Wellington, and Mr. H. R. Billing represented the defendant. The following jury was "empanelled:— Messrs E. Gerrard, W. Mclndoe, W. IT. Hay, A. S. Hasell, F. H. Jellyman, F. R. Price, E. Hellier, F. W. Danks, J. Telfar, G. E. Hook, E. JuHan and C. E. Roland, Mr. Hasell was chosen foreman.

In opening the case for the plaintiff Mr. Myers said there were two matters which he wished the jury to bear in mind throughout the hearing of the case, and they were both matters which would occupy a prominent position in the hearing. Counsel said he would put these matters to the jury interrogatively. First of all, supposing a member of the jury was asked to state the one libel that h c thought was the most offensive thing that could be said of a Britisher, would he not say the worst -and most offensive epithet that could be placed against a Britisher was to accuse him of behaving like a German? Supposing a juryman had been told by some friend of his that he had treated an agreement—a solemn agreement—in the same way as Germany had treated its treaty with other nations to preserve the neutrality of Belgium, counsel ventured to say the juryman would consider he had been insulted in a most dastardly way, and he would resent it. That was one point he wished the jury to sink well into 'their minds. The second point was, what was the most offensive thing that could be said about a business man? Surely it was an attack on his honor and his commercial integrity? Supposing it was said oi a man that he behaved dishonorably in his Business, in that he made an agreement, and when the time came to enforce the agreement, he held it over the other person and refused to carry it out, in order to extort more than the agreement, what would the jury say this was? This was a grave charge against a man. Counsel'then dealt with the causes of the action as set out in the statement of claim. The jury would have suggested to them every' other kind of interpretation upon the words complained of and defendant's counsel would endeavor to place a different meaning on them. But the jury had to look that it was not carried away by in-, genuity and eloquence, hut had to" look at the matter from the point of view of plain English, and the effects that these plain statements in the Taranaki Herald would "have on their fellow townsmen. If a man did another man an injury In this way it was his duty to see ' the injury removed, and an apology should be made. In libel cases, like this it was in the power of defendant to offer an apology as his defence, but counsel would show, that in this case there had been no apology or suggestion of apology, but rather insult had been added to injury, and it would be shown that since the time of these publications complained of malice had been introduced. Counsel then dwelt at length on three features of the case as follows: The refusal of the Taranaki Herald to insert a letter in support £f Saunders, quarrels between Saunders find Weston in regard to advertising, and trouble caused through Walter Weston promoting two. opposition picture companies. Mr. Myers put in the copv of the Taranaki Herald of October'2, 1915, containing the alleged libel. The defence admitted the publication.

A JOURNALIST'S EVIDENCE. Thomas C. List, proprietor oi the Taranaki Daily News, stated that he had been associated with Saunders for some years in. the ownership of the Theatre Royal, and (was so associated on October 2 last. VAt that time the theatre was owned by witness and Saunders, trading as the Empire Picture Company. Saunders was manager and controlled the letting of the theatre. Witness read the. article in the Taranaki Herald of October 2 and saw t!-5 reference to "a scrap i>f u.U'er.'" At this etage Mr. Skerrett objected to this evidence, on the grounds that it was irrelevant and Inadmissible. The article was in the English language ani was quite clear.

His Honor: We know a scran of paner as i thing we throw on the "floor, but in this case it is suggested that it had reference to the historicil phrase of the German Chancellor. Nowadays that phrase would be taken as the W.i,iing conveyed by the German Chancellor.

Continuing, witness said he considered the use now of the phrase " a scrap oi paper" would indicate that reference was made to the phrase said to have been used by the German Chancellor to the British Ambassador when discussing the observance or non-observance of a treaty with Belgium. The reference to 40 and fiO per cent, in the article meant that the ownors of the film received CO per cent, and 40 per cent, went to the owners of the theatre. On'tlie question of advertising Mr. Walter Weston and Mr. Saunders were at loggerheads, and witness bad tried to bring them together with a -view to an amicable settlement. About eighteen months ago Saunders was away and witness managed the theatres, and then witness endeavored to arrange advertising with Mr. Walter Weston. They came to an arrangement, and the advertising went on, but after the war broke out disputes arose again between Mr': Saunders and Mr. Walter Weston. Witness saw Weston and expressed the wish that be would meet the theatre proprietary in the matter of charges on account of one of the theatres being closed. The matter did not go very much further, and the negotiations were then in the hands of Saunders. From that time onwards the Theatre Company advertised only at intervals in the Taranaki Herald, and advertising had' not started again regularly.

HIRE OF A THEATRE. Cross-examined liy Mr. Skerrett, witness said lie was proprietor of the Taranakj Daily. News and was a large shareholder in the Taranaki Amusements, Ltd. Witness had a half interest in tlie theatres before the company was formed. These were the only two theatres in New Plymouth. The Theatre Company owned all the hoardings in Xcw Plymouth, and the letting of the Theatre Royal placed travelling companies in the hands of the company. Witness recognised that a newspaper was under moral obligations to tlie public. The Theatre Company recognised its duty in letting the hoardings to companies at proper payment and when the hoardings were not otherwise engaged. The theatres could be rented by a rental or by a percentage of the profits, and the letting could only be arranged by mutual arrangement. Mr. Skerrett: Supposing a company make a fair charge to such a company as Williamson's, should they not be ready to make a.similar charge to any show, provided the show people are prepared to pay cash;

Witness: They ought to be treated in the same way. Mr. Skerrett: What is the regular charge, cash down, for the rent of the Theatre fioyal for one night? Witness: I am not conversant with the charges for the theatre or for the hoardings. His Honor: Then how did you run the business in the absence, of Saunders? Witness: The charges in connection with the bookings were made out by Saunders before he went away. Mr. Skerrett: Cannot you tell me what those charges were? Witness: I cannot remember. Mr. Skerrett: Would you consider a half of the gross takings a fair rental to ask? Witness; It depends upon the circumstances. THE ACTION NOT SOUGHT.

Witness did not know the proprietor of the Kinemacolor Company was solvent and he did not know the company had written to rent, tile theatre. In his opinion, if they offered cash to rent the theatre they should get it, all things being equal. The company was entitled to rent the theatre 'at a fair rental. Witness knew nothing about the letter of July 10 from Mr. Staveley until he saw it published in-the Taranaki Herald. He accepted Mr. Saunders' statement that what appeared in the article was incorrect. Witness added: "I tried in every way possible to have this action settled out of Court. I am in no way the instigator of this action." Mr. Skerrett: You offered to Saunders to see 'Mr. Walter Weston and asked him to give an ample apology to Mr. Saunders ? Witness: Yes.

Mr. Skerrett: You adop'ted the role of a peace-maker in the matter, did vou?

Witness: Dog does not eat dog. Mr. Skerrett: No; but newspaper eats newspaper.

Continuing, witness said he could not give much information about the letters written by Mr. Staveley and Mr. Saunders. If the Herald extract was a fair copy of the letters he presumed they were correct, but he could say nothing definite on the matter one waj' or the other. If those statements were true, the public would be able "to say whether the criticism in regard to "a scrap of paper" was justified or not.

Mr. Skerrett then read correspondence between Staveley and Saunders, and the correspondence was put in. Staveley's letter was arranging for showing the kinemacolor pictures at 33 1-3 per cent, for Saunders. Saunders replied asking for 50 per cent, to which Staveley replied offering 40 per cent. Then Saunders replied to Staveley, saying, "One night fifty, only possible terms here." This correspondence took place in July, but on August 19 Staveley wrote agreeing to the 50 per cent, asked for. To this Saunders replied that he could not arrange for the films to be shown at the Theatre Royal. Mr. Skerrett: Do you think Saunders was justified in not allowing these films to be shown?

Witness: It depends upon the circumstances.

Continuing, witness said he knew the Kinemacolor Company came to New Plymouth and showed' in the Good Templar Hall.

Mr. Skerrett: T understand that you as peacemaker took part in the negotiations to get the Taranaki Herald to reduce its advertising rates. Do you know that some reduction was offered! Witness: I understand that that is so, but Saunders did not think the reduction offered was sufficient considering there was only one show running.

Mr. Skerrett: And the result was that you boycotted the Taranaki Herald as far as advertising was concerned? Witness: I would put it this way: The Taranaki Herald was not altogether indispensable to the running of the theatres.

His Honor: Did you or did you not insert advertisements after that? Witness: I know advertisements were put in the Taranaki Herald occasionally. Mr. Skerrett: Do you know those advertisements seldom exceeded one inch?

Witness: I did not take particular notice of the size

TROUBLE OVER A HALL. ■Mr. Skerrett: When the Kinemacolor Company took the Good Templar Hall, did Saunders refuse to let them use the hoardings? Witness: I know there was some trouble, but I do not know what was the nature of the trouble. , Mr. Skerrett: What was the trouble about? Witness: I know that there was trouble in regard to the theatre and the hoardings. Mr. Skerrett: Do you know that the Theatre Company arranged a special show at the Theatre Royal at the same time the kinemacolor people showed in the Good Templar Hall? Witness: I know there was a show in the Theatre Royal which was got up by Saunders, but I could not say it was a special show.

'Mr. Skerrett: Do you know that you | actually advertised thi9 special show in this rotten paper the Herald? Was this not a deliberate attempt to squeeze the kinemaeolor people?- • Witness: Saunders will be able to telli you all about that. Continuing, witness said the company spent about £ISOO in improving the Theatre Royal Witness and his partner sold their interests to the new company, and they received shares in it valued at £B2OO. The company acquired Cock's property, in the middle of the town, as it was a good site. Then the company bought Perry's corner, because they had to take over Everybody's liabilities. Witness did not know what was put before Mr. Weston. The company had "outposts"—.they showed at Waitara.

His Honor: Is "outposts" a technical term? Mr. Skerrett: It is similar to the military tgrm. The company put "outposts" outside New Plymouth before it stormed New Plymouth. His Honor: It would be their first line of trenches.

Re-examined by Mr. Myers, witness said the correspondence showed that after Saunders telegraphed "fifty only possible terms here" there was no reply from Staveley for about fhree weeks. Advertising on an extensive, scale by Williamson's represented £o' to £7 in each newspaper. That would mean a total advertising expenditure of about £l4. . Printing and posting of circulars, cost of advertising and all local expenses had to be paid by Saunders under the suggested arrangement. FORMING PICTURE COMPANIES. Jame3 Clarke, a land agent at New Plymouth, said he took the phrase "a acrap of paper'' to refer to the breach of an international treaty by Germany. Witness was associated with'llr. Walter Weston in Everybody's, Ltd., and the men who approached him were Messrs W. Weston and Collier. Mr. Henry Wes- ;

•ton applied for shares iu the company. The company did not go to allotment, because of an amalgamation scheme with the Empire Picture Company, That amalgamation was completed. Mr. ■Henry Weston would have nothing to do with the amalgamation, and while Mr. Walter Weston was in it up to a certain point lie did not go through with it. Everybody's Conlpany was ready for registration on October 2, the date of the publication of the alleged sibel. A rival company to the Amusements Company was subsequently formed. Mr. Walter Weston was at one or two meetings when the amalgamation was .discussed. It was proposed that Siflinders should be the manager of the new company, and Mr. Walter Weston "was not very keen on this." Cross-examined, witness said that before Everybody's was suggested Messrs Saunders and List had the only two theatre's in New Plymouth. Everybody's was in a position to be completed when Mr! Walter Weston left for Melbourne in August. The amalgamation was almost completed before Weston left, and it was finally arranged when he came back. The taking over of Cock's property and Perry's property was done while Weston was away. When Weston came back he refused to join the company. When the article complained of was shown to witness, witness asked Saunders if he had broken the "White Slave Traffic" contract, and Saunders said "Xo." The rental of the Theatre Royal was about £7 15s per night at the time witness was concerned with the theatre, but he could not say what the rental was now. • Saunders made public his version of the transactions, and there was every reason to expect a reply from the Kinemacolor Company. Mr. Skerrett: Are the people of"Xew Plymouth unduly thin-skinned? Witness: I don't think so. Mr. Skerrett: Is Mr. Saunders thinskinned? Witness: I don't think so. Mr. Skerrett: And you think Mr. | Saunders has reason to complain of this article which you call "hot stuff"? Witness: If this had been said about me I would have taken similar action to that taken by Mr. Saunders. Re-examined by Mr. Myers, witness said the rental of the Theatre Royal had gone tip since he was connected with it, as the building was a better one and had improved accommodation.

EVIDENCE OP THE PLAINTIFF.

Garnet Hornby Saunders, the plaintiff in the action, then gave evidence. Witness said he was manager of the Empire Picture Company on October 2. \Vitness remembered a letter handed to him by Mr, W. A. Low (advance manager for George Stephenson) and the letter was signed by Mr. Low. The letter was type-written by 'Mr. Mcteod, .of MeLcod and Slade, and the letter was handed to witness for him to give to the Taranaki Herald.

To his Honor: Witness did not ask Mr. Low to write this letter. Mr. Skerrett objected to the letter, and said the writer of the letter should be called.

Mr. Myers said that it was not the contents of the letter with which he was concerned, but the fact that a letter supporting Saunders had been refused by the Taranaki Herald. Continuing, witness said that he compiled the letter at Mr. Low's request, and when the letter was completed it was signed by Mr. Low. The letter was sent to the Herald about midday on October 4, but it was never published. Witness made absolutely no agreement with the Kinemacolor Company for the use of the Theatre Royal. Witness sent a telegram to the Kinemacolor Co. on July 29 saying, "Fifty only possible terms here." Witness received no answer to this telegram. On July 19 he started the first of the week entertainments, showing Mondays, Tuesdays, Fridays and Saturdays. The dates asked for by the Kinemacolor Co. were September 8 and 9. If he had a "star" attraqtion the full week would be run at the Theatre Royal. The Theatre Royal _ was free on September S and 9, and witness would have given the Kinemacolor people the theatre on one of those nights. Witness had been in Wellington and when he returned on August 23 he received a letter from the Kinemacolor people asking witness to take them on September 28. When witness got this letter he had made his arrangements ahead for eight or nine weeks. As his wire of July 26 had not been replied to in a reasonable time he concluded that the proposal was off, ;and he went ahead to make his arrangements. Witness had booked a picture for the Theatre Royal for September 28, and if he did not use the I picture, he would have had to pay for it. Witness therefore replied to the Kine[tnacolor Company that he regretted he could not show their films here. Witness meant that he could not, arrange to show the pictures at the time desired. Assuming that £OO was taken by the kinemacolor people, a half, £3O, would not pay witness as well as his own picture. The expenses which he would have had to pay for running the show would have amounted to about £3O. In this he* did not allow anything for hiring his own film, the use of which he had lost. Witness never heard that the kinemacolor people had booked a tour to fit in New Plymouth.

■' A MATTER OF FREIGHT. There was nothing in the Herald's article to show that Mr. Staveley in his ofFcr had suggested a new date," and so had proposed a new arrangement. Witness was approached by the Siacmacolor people about September 17. Mr. Paul Latham, representing the company, went to witness' office and asked were, there not some arrangements made for the Theatre Royal? Latham said he understood some arrangements were* made for the Good Templar Hall, but Latham said he would prefer to play in the Theatre Royal. They discussed the matter, and witness stili asked for 50 per cent. Witness said ho would advertise in the Herald if in his judgment he thought the show would benefit by it. Latham asked witness if lie would pay freight, and witness refused to do so. When the theatre is run on terms the theatre-owners never paid freight. Latham said he would have to telegraph Staveley before he could come to an agreement, and Staveiey replied that he would not pay freight. The negotiations were then off, and each, went ahead with his uw» show. Wit-' ness told Latham he could not let the hoardings, as ne was using them himself. In October the hoardings were the Picture Company's own property, and there was no by-law requiring them to be licensed. It was absolutely untrue that witness asked 00 per cent, from the "White Slave Traffic" people. The 1 original arrangement was 50 per cent., and there was never any argument about it. Witness' firm spent about £ISOO in improving the Theatre Royal before October 2, and this was never referred to in the Herald. The reason why no reference to the improvements was made was because witness was not advertising in the Herald. The first trouble with the Herald over

advertising arose about iy. years ago, Mr. Walter Weston "requested" a little more money for the advertising. At that time witness was giving the Herald twice as much advertising as he was giving the Daily News. After a, while witness stopped advertising in the Herald, and did not do so for about two months. Witness at this time went to Australia, and when lie returned he found Mr. List had again started advertising in the Herald, subject to witness' confirmation. Witness continued to advertise in the Herald for about eighteen months, and then the war broke out. Mr. Weston wanted more money for advertising, and consequently witness slopped the advertising. Witness had advertised spasmodically since then, but he found tho Herald was charging 4s Od an inch, and so he stopped it

PLAINTIFF CROSS-EXAMINED. Cross-examined by Mr. Skerrett: It was not until after the kinemacolor people left New Plymouth that he wrote the letter to the Herald. He was sure that he stated the facts in his letter. Witness' letter, regretting he could not see his way to show the kinemacolor films here, meant that he could not show them at the date wanted. . Mr. Latham asked witness if he would pay freight, and witness replied that he would not. The matter was left at that. The ehargo for ordinary rentals of the Theatre Royal was £8 15s per night. Mr. Skerrett: It has been your settled policy not to let a picture company have the Theatre Royal unless you made terms? You would not rent your the-' atre to them?

Witness: That.is our policy, and it is also the policy of every theatre company in New Zealand. 'You would not let another barrister go into your office and take up one of your best' cases and then let him simply pay you for renting your office, would you?

Mr. Skerrett: Did you not tell Mr., Latham that if he took the Good Templar Hall you would put up an attraction against him? Witness:. I said that there would be something good up against him. Mr. Skerrett: I put it to you that you got a special attraction to put up against him?

Witness: I already had the special attraction.

Mr. Skerrett: Did you run any show at the Theatre Royal on September 28 —the night when the kinemacolor show appeared at the Good Templar Hall? Witness: Yea. a splendid show. Mr, Skerrett:'And you held a matinee at the Empire Theatre and offered prizes for children.for essays on the picture? Witness: We did this for the good of the children.

Mr. Skerrett: Have you ever run a matinee at the "Empire Theatre on a Tuesday before? Witness: Not that I remember. Mr. Skerrett: And why did you do it on this occasion? Witness: Because we had a good picture for the children. Continuing, witness said that previously when he was advertising with the Herald a complaint against him was made in a letter to the Herald, but then the Herald sent the letter round, to witness before it was published. He considered "that it was the duty of the Herald to investigate the article in question before publishing it.

A CONTRACT PRODUCED. ' I Witness was then cross-examined at length as to the terms of the agreement between witness and the White Slave Traffic people. Counsel asked if witness demanded 60 per cent, for showing at New Plymouth and Waitara. Witness stoutly denied that he had asked for more than the fifty per cent. Counsel: If Matheson, advance agent, who is here, states that you stood out for sixty per cent., is he making a false statement? Witness: Certainly he would be, and he would get himself into trouble by doing so. There had been no departure from the original contract with. Cook, the owner of the film, which showed fifty per cent. Mr. Skerrett then asked if the contract could be produced. Mr. Myqrs handed the contract between Saunders and Cook which related to New Plymouth, the terms being fifty per cent. Asked aa to the terms for Waitara,

witness said fifty per cent. wa3 asked [ for, and agreed to. The arrangement in I this case was verbal. The contract was then put into court by Mr. Skerrett;. Mr. Skerrett: Js it not a fact that you have brought this action with f view of "crushing a rival f Witness: No. Mr. Skerrett: You have no feeling against the TaranaUi Herald? Witness: I know I am going to go along without them until I get better terms. Mr. Skerrett: It was a mere trade dispute between you and Mr. Weston in regard to advertising? , Witness: Yes. J Mr. Myers: And you have not ad'i vcrtised, constantly with the Herald [since ? Witness: No. Mr. Myers: And the Herald would have lost a lot of money because of this? Witness: From £2OO to £3OO. Mr. Skerrett: That would be of no consequence. Mr. Myers: I don't know. Sometimes the more wealthy » newspaper is ;the more it squeaks. At 5 p.m. the Court adjourned until 10 a.m. to-day.