SUPREME COURT.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXV, Issue 10713, 22 March 1913, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

JACKSON V. tiIUHAM. Tlio libel action, Jackson v. Graham was continued on Thursday morning, and on resuming Mr Hollings put in tho interrogatories. Mr Myers said that lie did not intend to call evidence, but asked His Honor to direct the jury as to express malice. His Honor made a note of the request.

in addressing the jury, Mr Hollings said that the jury would be surprised that the evidence of the plaintiff was not to be contradicted. His evidence had not been challenged except ay far as the interrogatories were- concerned. "More Anon's" letter made a ■statement that plaintiff had no right to ho on the Trust, being financially interested. Was that fair comment? To assail a man who was giving his time to public affairs when thtfre was no truth in the statement! The footnote to the letter was put there to protect the editor himself, and not Mr Jackson. 'Anonymous letters should not be published yvhen they attacked- a public man in such a manner —it was a stab in the back. The footnote to the letter was libel by repetition. The footnote destroyed the only defence that the defendant had—that • of• fair comment. The subsequent leading article destroyed the sincerity of the footnote — this.article was contradictory to the lootnote. This article' showed the insincerity and hollowness of the footnote. No evidence had been given that Mr Jackson was personally inter-;.; ested iii the. scholarship .grants.. Why j had Mr Jackson been selected as the, chopping-block for this attack? The Trust was criticised, hut Mr J*cksbn had been selected iis the person on , whom the attack was made. Why ■: was this? Mr Jackson <lid tiot know ■ of the school .committee's application to the (Borough Council for books. And the paper had not made enquiries as to the truth of their assertion; was not only an attack on the school committee, but also on Mr Jackson. The paper had challenged Mr Jackson to resign his position on the Trust, and when this course failed, as Mr Jtckson stuck to his guns, they .tried to get at him through the: school committee. Defendant was responsive for ( "the action, as plaintiff had onjy asked » him to withdraw the statement made. ' Defendant could have got /0»t of the j difficulty without the expenditure of a penny piece. He had forced the plaintiff to take this action. The object of the action was not to get money but to clear plaintiff's character. He did not a&k for exeess ; ve damages, but he could not ask for nominal damages in the circumstances, as it-would be an insult. He only wanted moderate, right and consistent damages. < Mr Myers, in addressing the jury, said that the newspaper had never said a single word against the character or honour of the plaintiff. What had been said had been in connection with criticism of plaintiff as a public man. He submitted that there was no express malice —it was too ridiculous to assert that the paper was ! actuated by malice. The articles had spoken eulogistically of the plaintiff, and yet his friend had the temerity to say that ths paper was actuated by malice. He was going to show that there was no apology—it was not an apology, as the newspaper did not admit it was wrong. The paper published- a decent, honourable paragraph, which, if Mr Jackson wanted only retraction, he should have accepted. Mr Jackson wished to humiliate the paper and stop criticism by the paper, and to prevent Mr Jackson being criticised. There was more than Mr Jackson's interest at stake—there was the matter of free criticism. If the jury found against the pap*r it would be punishing a paper for fair criticism, striking a blow at the freedom of the public and at the right of citizens to criticise.public men._ His honour traversed the points of the case, and the jury retired at 1.10 p.m. to corsider their verdict. After three and a half hour's retirement the jurv returned a verdict for plaintiff on the second count, with £25 damages, and a verdict for defendant on the first and third count. Costs were reserved., but on the application of counsel for defendant ten days were allowed in which to claim a nonsuit or apply for a new trial. j