LIBEL ACTION.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10422, 13 September 1911, Page 5

LIBEL ACTION.

KELLIHER v. BRIDGES. VERDICT FOR THE DEFENDANT In the Supreme Court at Masterton yesterday, .before His Honour Sir Robert Stout, C.J., the case was heard an which J. J, Kelliher, law clerk, claimed from. Jabez Bridges a isaim of £IOO2 in respect ( of libels alleged .to 'have been pub,y shed on or about June 30th to the newspaper sfcaffis of the Wairarapa I Age' and Wairarapa Daily Times. [ *Mr P. K. Logan, with Mr Powj mall, appeared for the plaintiff, and | Mr P. I/.-. Hollimgs if or the defendant.

| The following jury .was' empatfrefli ed;— Messrs E. R. B. Daniell (fore;miari), T. T. Denby, W. Jones, F. Kilmdnster; W. G. Hnwithome, H. W. Bungaite, J. C Brewer, >E. Eagle, S. H. Stokes, W. Adams, T. Cooper .and T. Newlamds. Mr Powmall intimated, that he had amended his cause of action by striking out (the Wairarapa. Daily Times' in paragraph 3. Mr Powmall .briefly mentioned l the eir cum/stances of the case. He stated (that the plaintiff was a law clerk in his (Mr Pbwnall'is) employ, and in such position was entrusted 1 with the handling of money. The defendant was organiser of the No-Licence, party. On March 30th a letter was published in the columns: of the Wairarapa Age, in reply to a letter in- ' serted in ithe' Wairarapa Daily Times by Mr Kelliher, which it was' alleged was defamatory and libellous. On tha following day a report of the meeting of the No-license party was 'published in the Wairarapa Age, in which it was alleged that Mr Kelliher (the plaintiff) was defective in moral rectitude. ■ This, it was alleged, was grossly libellous. Proceedings had been instituted against tho Wairarapa Age Company, and that paper had amply apologised and paid £4O as expenses. His Honor: Does that not preclude your first cause of action in this oase ? Mr Powmall said that had been pleaded, but he initended arguing the point. His.Honor: I merely mention the fact at this stage. I am afraid you will find yourself precluded. Mr Powmall proceeded to .state that Mr Kelliher had mo interest in the licensing question excepting that his father had been a publican, at Eketahuna, and had suffered' through has hotel being closed. The plaintiff was naturally anxious to see the licenses restored. The defendant bad lodged three defence's to the claim, two of which had been amended. In one of (these it had 'been alleged that the plaintiff had been guilty of publishing insulting correspondence. It would be proved, however, that this was not the oase. The defence alleged that the words were not defamatory, that they had not been published by the defendant, and if they were published, they . were fair comment. A claim had been added to he defence, alleging that the plaintiff had publicly and nnjustifiabry attacked tme '■■' business men of Masterton and other people. It would be ishbwm., however, that even if this were the case it would be mo defence in law. The correspondence on the iNo-license question had 'been started by Mr Kelliher, as a result of an address delivered by Mr Tocker at Stratford, but the/strictures of

Mr Kelliher could not be regarded as unjustifiable. In none iof QMr Kelliher's letters could .it be said that lie had ibeen labusive. It -would be urged l Ifor the defence that a sum of £4O had already been paid in satisfaction iby the Wairarapa Age. In answer (to this, Mr Kelliher would state float he had no desire to '"slate" the newspaper, and that the person whiom it was desired to make pay was Mr Bridges. MR KELLIHER'S EVIDENCE. Jbhn. J. Kelliher, (the plaintiff, stated that he had been a clerk in ffhe' employ of Mr Pownall for nine years, and ibis position ..was one- of trust. . Hie knew' the. defendant as Secretary to the No-license league. Witness had received a, letter from Mr Jiabez Bridges, inviting Mm to attend a meeting tin flue Town Hall. In a. icdrcular which was issued, it ' wlas said that 'statements, of tradesmen would he read at the meeting. It wlas in consequence of this (that witness wrote his letter. Witness was in no way allied with the Liquor Party, although ibis father had been ruined by the closing of (hotels. He felt aggrieved at the publication of the letter in the paper, because he tfetft [that his reputaiom had been affecited. He bad l proceeded against the Wairarapa Age Company in connection with the letter, and had received an apology and a .sum of '£4o. This he had accepted in fail! satisfaction. He had thought that the ( paper was not so ■much to blame as Mr Bridges, as it had not .originoited the action. The action against the ! Age was instituted on July Ist, and 'a iletter was forwarded to Mr Bridges, on July 15tih, demanding an apology for alleged slander. This action was still pending wQien the action against the Age was settled. Witness had gone ,to the Town Hall to the No-license meeting. •By Mr Hbllingsi: Witness had not attended ithe meeting in answer to a challenge. He refused to go to the meeting to discuss tthe No-license question,. Witness 3iad accepted £4O from the Wairarapa Age. in settlement of a cause of action. The defamatory matter complained of in the second action was the same as in the first. Witness diid not want to be exacting with the newspaper. He did not go to the newspaper and ask for an apology. He issued a writ on the morning of the issue of the alleged libel. Witness could wot soy wthy (he sued the Age and not the Daily Times. He admitted having proceeded to the Daily Times 'office and told them that 'he had issuedl a writ against the Age, at the same time warning the former paper

" against further publication. Wit* u ness had no ill-feeling against the Age, and lead no desire to humiliate it. Witness ihiad insisted upon the Age apology .being published in a prominent place in the "Wladrarapa Daily Times," and had given Übo latter paper a paragraph .stating " that a writ was issued against Mar Bridges. Witness had 1 issued *lw writ against Mr Bridges samultane--ously with the settlement with the 1 Age. Witness was not aware that Mr Powmall had promised Dr Trimble that .the action, against Bridges would not be proceeded with. Witness was still in the employment of Mr Powmall, and he was not aware that he had Buffered any special damage by the publication of the fibrf. The £4O was not paid over totil two days after the issuing of the writ against Bridges. When witness asked that the tradesmen, of Mastertmi .should substantiate their statement by tallowing their books to be examined by a piublio accountant, he rnieam* .to infer that he did not accept t'lite' statements of the tradesmen. He ( ecn:;id not say hew he was affected amorally by ,tl<o statement contained ail the lettar of Mr Bridges. Tfo damage done was by innuendo. ofitness was here crossexamined abcut certain letters published' an, the Mana-watu Standard.) He admitted t&at neither Mr Tock- ! er, Mr Mr McGregor, or the tradesmen of Maisterton had instituted (proceedings against Mm. He did not adimit that he had been writing to ether townships decrying the township. Witness had supplied' certain information for publication in the Feilding Star, but had received no payment, Mr Hoilings. proceeded to ask certain questions about the empty houses' in Masrterton., but His. Honor observed that, as l justification had not been pleaded, such, questions appeared to be inreveJant. By Mr Logan : Witnes® complained that .the report of ithe meeting in the Town Hal! had been published to the editor of the Wairarapa Daily Times and his staff. James Brown, .managing Director of the Wairarapa Age Company, deposed that he had received the original of the advertisement/headed *'A Question" by post from C&rterton. The advertisement was* charged to the NoJicense League. The advertisement had been handed to his sub-editor, and he had not 6ince seen, it. He had- also /printed and published the' Wairarapa Age» containing the report of the No-Jioense, meeting in the Town Hall. After the case had been settled, all the papers dealing.with the No-license cas& had been put in an envelope and placed in a safe. He had not seen the contents. He had instructed his son to procure the copy. Arthur H. Vile, editor and subeditor of the Age, deposed that a certain letter had passed through his hands dn the form' of an advertisement. The matter contained in "that letter was not identical with what appeared in the advertisement, because he had excised' certain, portions of it. A report purporting to be a report of the No-license anni-' " versary meeting had passed through his hands. He could not say Iwhere . the documents were now. E. J. Brown, business manager of the Wairarapa Age, deposed to having procured certain papers, which he didl not read, but which were signed "Jabez Bridges." These were placed in an envelope and put in. the office safe. He had not removed them. James Brown, senr., re-oaUed, stated that he had taken an envelope from his safe and placed it on th© table in Dr Trimble's office. This was afiter the action with the Wairarapa Age was settled. Dr Trimble, solicitor practising in Masierton, deposed that he had been acting for the Wairarapa Age* Company in the libel action brought by Mr Kelliher. He had received an envelope from hisi client, 'containing certain documents. ' This envelope was not now in bis possession. His Honor expressed' doubt as to wihether the question of wfhat a solicitor did with a client's' docniment could be put, '■ At anyrate* he allowed it to be put. The witness stated that hie had handed the document to Mr Hoilings, who was solicitor for Mr Bridges. -Robert W. Rohson, managing editor of the Wairarapa Daily Times, deposed .that he had received a document from Mr Bridges, purporting to be a report which Mr Bridges intended reading at a meeting in the Town Hall. Witness handed' the report to 'his staff, and did not see it again until Mr Bridge© had called for it. Witness had returned the report to Mr Bridges. Witness had deleted a portion of the report, but had not read the proof with copy. He had glanced' through the report, but did not notice the particular portion wfoirih formed the subject of this action. Frank Hodge, reporter on the staff of the Wairarapa- Age, deposed that hie had seen a report purporting to be the report of Mr Jabez Bridges, which was read at the No-license meeting. He had' read report of the meeting in proof form, but had not compared it with the original document. Robert John .Smith, foreman printer at the Wairarapa. Da% Times office, deposed that he had" received tiie copy of the report of the Nolicense meeting. Some of it was in 'writing, some was type-written, and some printed matter. All that was in the original document was set. Witness could not say where the original had got to. Theodore Armstrong, clerk in the Wairarapa Daily Times office, deposed that he had not seen the manuscript of the report of Mr Bridges. Witness was in the office When Mr Bridges came in and asked for the report back again. Witness believed: that the report was handed to Mr Bridges. John B. Rue, canvasser for the

(Continued from Pago 5.)

he had seen a type-written report of a No-license meeting. He had only read a small' portion of the dboumenlt, and could not say what it contained. He remembered Mr Bridges coming in and asking for the return of the doaument. Eidwardi H. Buckeridge, -.farmer, | residing near Carterton, deposed that he was an occasional! .subscriber to the Age. He procured copies of the paper for June 30th. and July ' Ist, and road the report of the NoMcearse meeting, and a letter written by Mr Jabez Bridgjes. The impirestsion created on hia mind was that tEe person to wihom the letter was addressed was a person of no principle or 'character. By Mt Hbllings>: Witness had at one tiniie conducted a public-house. He placed mo reliance a<t all upon what No-license people said. George C. Sumanerell, manager for Messrs Levin and Ob., in Masterton, dieposed that he had read the letter and report in the Age. He had' noticed the references to Mr Kelliber, and' these would create an unfavourable impression in his mind in (respect to Mr Kelliber. By Mr Hollings: He probably treated the letter as an ordinary newspaper squabble. ORie-examdned hy Mr Powmall'i The impression created on Ms mind was that the remark* concerning Mr KelMher were rather too severe. Ormond C. Cooper, manager for Messrs Abraham w and William®, depiosed to haviag read'.the oorre.spon-; ''dehcedejiee in. the''Age: This created a somewhat unfavourable impression on his miiihd concerning Mr Kelliher. By Ma* Boilings.: Witness had been spoken to two or three day® ago about the letter. He had formed his impression on reading the correspondence at the time it was pubi Mshed. James B. Moodie, manager for Messrs Dalgety and Co., deposed that he was- a reader of the Age. He had, noticed the report and correspondence relative to Mr Keflliher. Had ithe references been made 'to any person in his employment it would have proved detrimental to hiiim. By Mr Hollings: He formed his impression when, he read the re-' ; port:- ' '". Arthur H. Vile, re-called, stated that a letter and' correspondence had passed' through hisi bandls, but he could not state whether what appeared in print was absolutely the same a.s what was in the original.

Tlhis was tile case for the plaintiff. Hia Honor maintained tih'at there had been no evidence of, publication. His Honor stated tih'at, on regard to tJie Wairarapa Daily Times, there probably had not. The position in regard tfo the Age... neovtfipaper was, however, a lit/tie different. 'Ma- Soilings then contended that the libel in respect to the Age had already been satisfied by the payment of £4O. He further . argued that section 5 of the Libel Act . AmendlmenitAct, whicih required: "notice - of ~ the action "wnen another action wia-s pending, had not ' been complied! with. He also maintained tfliat under section 4 the action was barred. No malice was shown, and 4 the publication was priviiiLeged. Mr Pbwnall siubtmitted that there, had beeoi' sufficient proof of publicationi to warrant the case being sent; ito the jury. He contended that the [ question of satisfaction was only a ! question of mttitigation of damages. j His Honor: How dio you propose getiting over the fact that one wtfong-doeir released means the release of all? The law, as laid down by Odgers, is that the oases are one and indivisible. I don't see how you are going to get over this. ■Mr PowniaU contended tibia* proceeding® could be imatitiuted against one or mx>re person® on . the »ame cause of action. His Honor quoted: decisions in support of the statement he had made regarding the law. ;.Mr. Pbwnall asiked that the case be not witihdra.win. from the jury. j 1 ffiis Honor: But I miust. Uhere % no .use going. on., You Jiava 'your.iiddrss&by'wuy of appeal. '■■■"■' , .Mr PownaJi: Very well, your Honor; I. cannot say any more. His Honor said that the position was that certain evidence had been put in. lit was his> duty to d&reqt the jury to find a verdict for tlhe defeftidant. The jury was bound by j that direction. He was of opinion tlilat there had been no proof of publication in the Wairarapa Daily ! ! Tfiimes.. He thought Mr Hollangis j was wirong in stating that there was I not sufficient evidence po go to the joiry in regard to the publication in [ the Wairarapa Age. In regard to

the other point raised by Mr Hollings», that the case had already been satisfied by a payment by the Woirarapa Age, he was of opinion that this had not been answered. The law said that when one wrong-doer was l released from a test, this was a release of all. The jury, without retiring, returned! a verdict for the defendant, in accordance with His Hfonjar's direction . His Honor entered up judgment accordingly, with costs according to scale.