NO DEFAMATION

Wairarapa Times-Age, 15 November 1939, Page 7

NO DEFAMATION

JURY DECISION IN LIBEL ACTION MAJORITY VERDICT GIVEN FOR DEFENDANTS. I FILM' CONTROL BOARD CASE. (By Telegraph—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, This Day. Finding that the words complained of were not defamatory against plaintiff. the jury in the Supreme Court. Wellington, which heard the claim foi £100(1 damages for alleged libel brought by J. Robertson. M.P.. against Garnet Hornby Saunders. New Plymouth. and Harry Thompson. Napier, returned a verdict in favour of defendants. Plaintiff is secretary of the New Zealand Motion Picture Exhibitors' Association and editor of the "Motion Picture Exhibitors' Bulletin," and defendants are motion picture exhibitors. The claim arose from an open Jette: sent to exhibitors by defendants befort the election of representatives to thi Film Control Board, after their name: had been missed out of a list of candidates published in the "Bulletin." The jury of 12 was absent foui hours and a quarter. They returnee at 9 p.m. and announced that there was no possibility of their reachini unanimity, and the verdict accepted was that of 10 men to two. Judgmen' was entered for defendants, but ai application by counsel for plaintiff foi 10 days in which to move any motion was granted. The hearing began oi Friday. Yesterday was occupied witl further evidence foe defendants am addresses by counsel. Mr Justice Johnston was on thi bench. Mr J. S. Hanna appeared fo plaintiff, Mr O. C. Mazengarb foi Saunders, and Mr J. Mason (Napier) for Thompson. REFLECTION DENIED. Cross-examined yesterday morning about proceedings at a meeting of th', association executive after the publication of the “Bulletin," of which defendants complained, Saunders said he did not apologise then, not thinking that the latter reflected on plaintiff He did not remember plaintiff saying that he was a public man, and owed i to the people he represented to cleai himself, but he did remember plaintiff saying that the letter might b( used against him at a political meet ing. The first intimation he received of the omission of his name from the "Bulletin" was in a telephone conversation with Thompson, who was disturbed. but not angry. He himself was not angry, but was amazed. He assumed that it was an Auckland man, whom he named, who left the two names out of the "Bulletin." He thought there was some "double crossing’’ going on. which was the same thing as "filthy-in-trigue," a phrase used in the letter of which plaintiff complained. Mr Hanna pointed out that the man named could not have written the matter in the "Bulletin," because it was attributed in the introduction to a man of different description. Witness said it was he who wrote the letter and he read it to Thompson over the telephone. He did not for a moment .intend to attack plaintiff, who had been an excellent secretary since the inception of the association, and a loyal worker for the welfare of the industry. Thompson also gave evidence brief-

Mr Mazengarb said that in the film business men had got used to using strong language, and when defendants felt there had been some shoddy intrigue somehow by someone, they used strong language, but it was not intended to apply to plaintiff. If there was any ill feeling or malice it was rather on the other side. The words were not referable to 'plaintiff, and were not actuated by malice, ill-wind or spite. Mr Mason said, during his address, that because Thompson had expressed his opinion about the conduct of the association, it did not follow that lie was actuated by malice or spite. It was only by putting a construction on the letter that had not been intended tha.: it could be called libellous. Thompson was not the writer of the letter, but was a man who had stood by Robertson and helped him. Mr Mason pointed out that plaintiff was returned at the top of the poll. Mr Hanna sfiid that defendants, in- . stead of saying courageously that what they had written was true, said that it had not been intended lo refer to Robertson.- He submitted that what defendants intended was immaterial. QUESTION FOR THE JURY. , Summing up, his Honour said it was no answer to a claim of. libel that it was thought the words were true, though that explanation might be given in mitigation of damages. He had decided that in the case before the Court the words were used on a privileged occasion. That was to say. they were made to people having the same interests as the person who uttered them. When words were privileged, to be actionable they must be proved to have oeen uttered maliciously. It was not sufficient to say they were untrue. The best proof of malice plaintiff conic give was that defendants did not believe when they published the word: that they were true. That was thi primal factor the jury had to keep in mind. He would hold that the word: were capable of a defamatory meaning If that were so the question was whether they were defamatory to plaintif. on that occasion. Would the ordinal) man reading them consider them an attack on tiie character of plaintiff". The jury had had from defendants n< real suggestion that the words were not libellous; merely that they did not refei to plaintiff. The only difficulty was thi question of identification, and that wai a question for (lie jury. It was not ; defence th.it defendants intended to re fer to someone else. After the jury had retired at 4.4( p.m.. Mr Mazengarb complained of misdirection or non-diroction of the jun by his Honour. He said that if a reasonable person would think that plaintiff was the person aimed at. though defendants did not intend to aim at plaintiff, then the admitted absence o! honest belief in tile statement, so fai is plaintiff was concerned, was no' 1 evidence of malice toward him. Tin , virtue of the defence had been turnei jy tiie direction into evidence of inal ( ice. . < Mr Mason joined in Mr Mazengarb': protest. 1 His Honour said lie felt his direction ' lad been correct, but noted the pro- I test. ’