LIBEL ACTION.

Taranaki Daily News, 23 May 1918, Page 4

LIBEL ACTION.

£2OO DAMAGES By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, May 22. At tbe Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Edwards and a jury are engaged 'hearing a case in which Luther Hopkins, solicitor, claims £2OOO, for alleged libel, from each of the proprietors of the Post, Times, and Dominion (Wellington) and the Herald (Auckland). The alleged libel was contained in p, Press Association telegram, from Chriatchurch, which was headed,-' "Solicitor Struck Off the Roll," when,' ; as a mater of fact, a rule liisi only was applied for. Plaintiff claimed that his credit, profession, and reputation had been injured. The defence admits publication, but claims that itjjyaa without malice, and points out thjrtftlie.rp'sßers concerned published an apology before the action was commenced. Thomas William Scliofield, manager in Wellington for R. G. Dim and Co., said lie had known plaintiff slightly for six or seven years. . When lie saw the telegrain in' tjlo pamfi's he at once thought some serious charge hac) been made cgainst Hopkins, and the action had been commenced (not then concluded) to have him struck off the rolls. This closed the case for the plaintiff. Mr. Myers called Joseph Parker, editor of the Evening Post, who explained how the error occurred. On February 28 he heard there had been on error in iVs message, and had inserted in the newspaper a correcting paragraph. It was his invariable rule to make a correction if a mistake occurred. In his experience of 2a years, this was the first time a new* paper had not been given an opportunity of correcting an unwitting mistake. Mr. Myers said the paragraph had been published quite innocently, without thought of inaliee, In spite of what Hopkins said, it was clear lie had not been practising his profession since 1!)14, and, therefore, had not suffered professionally. Plaintiff never asked for a retraction of th« statement, although he" had all the facts before they were known to the papers. He urged it was a case for small damages. Mr- Blair repudiated the suggestion that it was the duty of the person defamed to persuade a newspaper to correct, nn error He suggested the damages should 'be substantial. He did not consider the Wellington papers had male '■' eh an ample apology as should have bean given to Hopkins. His Honor said an incorrect statement had boon published which was not priviInrred. and it would be the dvity of the jury to award such damages as, in their vpinion. would be a reasonable recompense for the amount of damage done. The jury awarded £2OO, to be apportioned among the four papers at £SO est"':. Judgment wp.h entered for plaintiff accordingly, with costs against each defendant on the lowest scale up to the stage of the jasiM of the four writs, and for the rest as for one action for £2OO, the remainder of the costs to bo born? in equal shares among the several defendants