UNUSUAL LIBEL CASE.

Taranaki Daily News, 31 December 1919, Page 5

UNUSUAL LIBEL CASE.

1 HOSPITAL STAFF RESENT IMPUTATIONS. 1 At the Hamilton sittings of the Su- ' prome Court recently ilr. Justice Cooper was engaged in hearing- a libel action between 22 non-commissioned officers of the staff of the King George Hospital at i Rotorua and Adair Gardnei, printer, of Rotorua, Alfred Styak, solicitor, Auckland, and Ellen Annie Gardner, widow, ! Rotorua. proprietors of the Eotorua ; Chronicle. The alleged libel was contained in a letter published in the Rotorua Chronicle . of September 16, 1919, which referred to the plaintiffs, and was signed by "T. C. , Wilson, Brighton Road, Remuera,' - who could not now be found. Plaintiffs claimed tlin.i the words of the letter meant that none of the plain--1 tiffi) had been on active fervice; ' that the plaintiffs had shirked or bv improper means avoided military service; that they were unfit or unqualified to hold their positions; and by reason of the publication plaintiffs alleged that they had been injured in their reputation and had been brought into public odium. They claimed £2,200, being £IOO to each of the plaintiffs. The defence was that the article was fair comment. Eleven issues were submitted to the jury, and they were answered as follow; —(1) Did the letter.refer t.n the plain- . tiffs? —Yes. (2) Did it :■ them ; in the way of occupation ""ngT— Yes. (3) Tf the letter refi .ej to the I plaintiffs, did it mean that none of the j plaintiffs had been on active service , with the N.Z.E.F. or' otherwise in the ; late war?— Yes. (4) If the letter re- : ferred to the plaintiffs, did it mean that the plaintiffs had shirked or by improper ' means avoided being despatched on aetive service in the late War?— No. (a) If the letter referred to the plaintiffs, 1 did it mean that the plaintiffs are unfit 5 or unqualified to hold their positions in • the hospital?— No. (II) Is the letter i defamatory?— Yes. (7) If so, of which of them is it defamatoryV—All of them. > (8) Ts'tho letter fair comment?— No. t (0) Was the letter published maliciousi ly?—No; but defendants showed gross . carelessness in not taking steps to as- ; certain the truth or otherwise of the . allegations in the letter. (10) Are t the plaintiffs, or any of them, and. if i bo, which of them, entitled to receive j any damages from the defendants?— Yes; each of them, (11) If any of the 7 plaintiffs are entitled to recover any ~ 7 damages, to what damages are thev enj, titled?—£3, £6O in all.