MANAWATU LIBEL CASE.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10409, 1 September 1911, Page 5

MANAWATU LIBEL CASE.

HOBEN V. SMITH.

I-.UAINTIFF AWARDED* £275

DAMAGES,

By Telegraph—Fress Association.

PALMEROTON N., Last The Chief Jrastioe' was ocoupiscf today with tibe action of Ernest Denis Hoben., editor and lessee of ihe Manawatu Daily Times!, claiming £5Ol damages against William Henry Smith and the Rangitikei Advocate Puhlshing Company, for alleged BIbel.

The statement of claim alleged that on, July 14ttih, 1911, the c of("aidant® printed and published of The plaintiff, in ftJhie Bangitikei Ad/ocaie. the following words:— "An.' amusing story m current which relates thaa an egotistical newspaper tyro (meaning thereby the plaintiff) interviewed the CKMidiu'ctor of a great musical combination, and caused him to laugh (consumiedlly over his statement that ibe' could sympathise- with Ma troubles because he had once oonducted a itour of a- football team. Though this neophyte (meaning' thereby the plaintiff) is always, attacking his contemporaries, they seMom take any notice of his infantile wails; but the other day he excelled even' himself. A great show was held, at which, magnificent .specimens of produce, etc., were exhibited, and l "the next day he seriously assured Sua readers that the one .topic of the day was a. football mlatchi.. Evidently his mental calibre could be measured only with a micrometer." It was alleged: that the meaning of the .said publication -was that the plaintiff -was an ignorant beginner as ia journalist, without experience in his vbrasinesa as a journalist, and *vas eo .deficieaifc in mental capacity as to Ibe unfit to conduct .such a ibusines?. It TVas also alleged that the plaintiff had suffered loss and damage to tea reputation as a jtrarnaliisit by reason of such publication. The defence pleaded that the Racgitikied, Advpqate had no circuUriott outside the Rangitikei district; that the article was not defamatory; siid that it did not apply to the plaintiff; also justification' and fair comment. IMir Charles A. Loughman, with hiitt Mr iR. D. Bagnal, appeared for the plaintiff, and Messrs Qharles B. Attrlison- (of Wellington'), C. R Cocl'e and ,C. B. Collins (of MartD-i) for defendants. During the hearing of the caso, Mr Morrison, for the defeidants, abandoned the pleas of fair comment and justification, andisaid it was absurd to think that his clients could have meant to seriously reflect upon Mr Holbeni's experience and ability as a jburniaHisit, which (Was well4:nowu. JB* asked the jury .to regard the matter as jocular. Mr Loughnany however, called witmasses to .show that the libel was part of a (succession of attacks through .the Courts by Smith egainss HJohen, who had leased the paper belonging to Smith. . The jiury, after half an honrs retirement, returned a v&rti.rt. for £.2ifs damages for the plaintiff.