SAUNDERS V. WESTON

Taranaki Daily News, 16 March 1916, Page 4

SAUNDERS V. WESTON

application for new TRIAL DECISION RESERVED. (By Telegraph—Special to .Dally Newt.} Wellington, Last Night. ' The Supreme Court to-day was en, gaged hearing an appllcatio» for a new trial in the action, Saunters v. Weston recently heard at New Plymouth. Plain' tiff is the manager of the Taranald Amusements, Ltd,, aid claimed £IOOO damage from tho Taranaki Herald for , alleged libel contained in an article ferring to his management of tie theatres vnder his eontrol. The jury found a, verdict for the newspaper* and plaintiff applied for a new trial on tho ground that the jury had beta..mis. directed by the judge and the verdict waa against the weight of evidence. " Mr, Myers appeared in support <Jf the application and Mr. C. P. Skerrett, K>C. with him Mr T. S. Weston, for defend dant.

In the course of argument, Mr. Myers said it wag admitted that the puWca. Lion referred to plaintiff. .It was pr»V*k or admitted that plaintiff was abusineu vim and the article referred to the eon« ' duct of his business. It must be at}, suited that to charge a business man with breaking his business contract was defamatory.

His Honor: The primary definition it hat a statement holds-a person up to hotrod, ridicule, or contempt. It nay'bfe that the jury may consider in a given ease the statement made, although defamatory to you, might not be defamatory to me. A statement may hold you up to hatretf, ridicule or contempt, but they may regard me as such a case-hardened sinner with such A notorious reputation that it doe* not matter. Is not that one of the reasons why this matter is left to a jury? They may take the measure df plaintiff pa»« sibly from some local knowledge. • Mr. Myers: They have no right to dd that. His Honor: Why not?

Mr. Myers replied tint if a word'Uttd against a business man waß obviously defamatory the jury had no right to find against him.

His Honor: What is, defamatoryT It must be obviously defamatory to twelve men trying a case.

Mr. Myers: No; if your Honor «u right there could never be any sew trial in a libel action.

His IJonor: It is a very hard thing to get. Air. Myers: There are severtl cases in which ti new trial has been granted. His Hinor: On ground that it was nofc a libel or was a libel? Mr. Myers: Yes. Mr. Skerrett: There have been thre« cases in 200 years, Mr. Myers: There arc mere. His Honor: My view of libel is not what a lawyer may think to be g libel but what a jury of twelve men tpay consider to be defamatory. Mr. Myers quoted authorities at length In order to show that th» decision of a jury in a libel case need not be regarded as filial. Actual agreement between Saunders,, and the Ivinemacolor people showed the division was fifty and fifty. The statement published. that the arrangement was sixty amT forty was clearly false, yet, the jury had held it was true. The jury's answer on other issues was demonstrably fable, since it had been admitted in evidence that the ptiele meant Saunders hid broken an agreement with Kineniacolor, Mr. Skerrett argued that tlie words in the letter forming the basis of the case were ambiguous. That fact was admitted in effect by plaintiff, since, the statement of claim interpreted was for the jury to answer. The jury's decision on the question of opinion was Anal. Mr. Skerrett also raised the question of privilege. After prolonged argument, the Court reserved its judgment. *