Another Libel Case.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XV, Issue 4763, 3 July 1894, Page 3

Another Libel Case.

' . Mhm ut Cargill, (By Telogifipli.— Press Association)

• Wkmixgton, Monday, Aftorwe went to press yesterday ■ the case N. Nathan y. W r , C, Cargil proceeded ns follows: Vernon Willeston, clerk of tin ■i Labour Bureau, was called; but saici / ho heard vory little, and could 110 swear to.wlmt words wero used, ', . solicitor, said Ik #had got a friend to take seats, aiu ho took thorn for tho following nigh in mistake. Tho nslior was vory in Solent, and swore at witness, Did no hear plaintiff use any bad language Ho talked loudly, J t Williams, storeman, said hi hoard Nathan in the passago cal Linloj y young imp,' ask him to find the manager Lmloy. said lie would not go, aiu Nathan caught him by tho collai and said ho would shako tho lifi „ 011 ' of him." This was all the lan iIMR lio heard, Curtis said he heard Liuloi ut ™fuso to find the manager fo 'y Nathan, who tlion rushed at liini saying: "All right youb , will made you!" and knocked hin against the wall. This closed the caso for tho dc fence. Mr Edwards then called: Maurice Nathan, hotclkecpor, wh denied that his brother had used tli language said to have been spoke; to Linloy, A, Gray, recalled, stated tliat h did not hear Mr Wilford oiler to giv up his scat to Mr Nathan. William J. Martin, sheepfarmei residing in tho Wairarnpa, who iva; present at tie performance, swor that Mr Nathan did not use any bai language. The first article did no \ represent what took place, i This closed the evidence. I , Pownall, in addressing tli ' " j'li'y, commented upon the fact tha the plaintiff had not gone into tli box to give his version of the inattei - The article, he said, was Trivolou; but not libollous. The word "black guard" was undoubtedly defamatory but lie contended that the plaintil had behaved in a blackguardly am caddish manner. Mr Edwards said that the articl > was absolutely unjustifiable, Hi traversed tho various statements ii tho article, contending that tliej imputed that his client was a dis honest character, and that ho hai used gross and offensive language Tlipre was not one word of evidenc to justify the statements. If tho dc fondanthad expressed regret thattli | articlojiad appeared and apologisei J ~ there would havo been an end t '' tho matter. Ho trusted that tli jury would give such a verdict n : would bo a warning to scribbler not to take away tho character o their fellow-citizens without jus ■ cause. His Honor, in summing up sail ; ho could not sustain Mr Edwards contention that tho incident wa not a matter of public interest upoi which a paper could commont. H was quite clear that tho conduct o persons in a theatre, if it bo such a: to interfere with the comfort of tin audience and the performance of th piece, was a matter of public inter k —est. . His Honor went on to say tha the references to plaintiff's occupn tionwero irrelevant and impropei and could only be made for the pui poses of prejudice. Still more un justifiable wero the reference to' th race and religion of tho plaintiff--1 thoy wero vory gross. He would nc f lay flown tho law, it was really matter for tho jury, but sue references wero entirely uujustifiabl and distinctly, in his opinion, scum ous. Ho did not agree with II Mwai'ds that there was any iruputi tion against tho plaintiff of obscenit or any reflection upon tho ladies ( tho party. Tlio charge of tho use < bad language by Nathan was n< supported. The evidence of tl witnesses on both sides distinct! refuted that charge. The statomei alleged to havo been nmdeby Nathn as to stopping the flhow was not i good taste—far from it, but it was question for thojiuy whetherit just fied the statements in the articl IHo held that what occurred in tl body of the theatre was a matter i [pablic interest, und any public writi was justified inreportingit,butnot: Knventing things that did not occu |A writer would also be justified i making fair and reasonable commei iupon what occurred, bnt not in usin Iscumlous language, If tho jui [Were satisfied that tho articlo was ■misrepresentation of fact, and sen rilons in tone, they would be just fiedin treating it as libel. The jury retired at 3.46 p.m, ar returned at 4,12 p.ra, with a verdi for plaintiff for £SO. Costs on tl lowest scale were allowed.