Bulletin "
pp. 144-145 · Read in the full issue
Libel Case
Fails
MLA V. "Samoa Bulletin "
THE libel suit brought by Mrt Gurau, European elected £ ber of the Western S 8 Legislative Assembly, againsr owners and the editor of the , - Bulletin, at Apia, in whicMe damages were claimed, was g before Judge E. F. Rothw Apia High Court on Februar;i In a judgment delivered one ruary 28, the Judge found in i of the defendants.
The defendants were repre by Mr. R. Metcalfe, while ther plainant appeared on his ow' half.
The complainant claimed tl± following sentence, contained-: leading article in the S& Bulletin, of September 21, 19EEH untrue and libellous and pulij with the intention of disem the complainant as a member i Legislative Assembly in the © the public: Does it (the public) alsoo‘ that the enemy of foreign o Mr. Gurau, is himself asstz with a wholly foreign-owne&± which is operating in WJ Samoa without a trading whatsoever?
Mr. Gurau claimed in ew that the editor of the local L had conducted a political cam against him and other memttr the Legislative Assembly, th:d minating in the leading arfct September 21 containing poq attacks upon those membens himself.
Though he did not ob;d criticism of his political view activities, he strongly objeco; attacks on his personal inttx and the innuendo of the sea? quoted charging him with a j of the existing laws governingr ing in Samoa.
Defendants submitted thsr. words were not capable of i famatory meaning and wouu tend to lower the plaintiff estimation of reasonable meia did they attack his characteia nothing dishonourable or imi was implied.
The Editor of the Bulletin T. J. Dunleavy) stated thwi name of the firm with whioL Gurau was associated was woldt and Company, owna Hamburg, and that the firm opo in Samoa and had no ft license.
Defendant claimed thsri editorial complained of 1 political commentary writtene a debate in the Legislative Asas.
It was intended to show do ancies between the conduct oe
;ians and their attitude in the ibly. At the time of writing, laht had no ill-feeling towards f the politicians mentioned, arding the term “enemy of ign capital,” Mr. Dunleavy that he had formed his n as a consequence of the re made by Mr. Gurau in the bly, and his opposition to the ng of licenses to two overseas Gurau submitted sworn evid hat in 1954 when applying for ling licence for Breckwoldt & e was told by the Collector istoms and the Attorney al that no such licence could inted but that there was no ion to Gurau, as a licensed ssion agent, representing the 1 Samoa. iu claimed that if there had my suspicion of a breach of w by him, it would have been aty of the Government to ite him. ixpenses of his business were by him and not by Messrs, roldt, and therefore the latter not be considered to be ng in the Territory. isel for the defence claimed le public conduct of a public nay be discussed with the freedom and made the object ;ile criticism. He also claimed le words used were substanti le. >r Dunleavy, when recalled, 3d that he had obtained the ation regarding the licence Bckwoldts from the licensing ity and that he had been told s Mr. Gurau as commission ’epresented the firm, no sep icence was required. 3 Rothwell found that the inant had, in the Legislative ily and outside of it, been :en in opposition to invest f foreign capital in trading is in Samoa, though it was hat he had qualified his iit i o n by confining it to is which, he felt, were not in st interest or for the best ment of Samoa. He had, r, not said so in public. gh the term “enemy of capital” was somewhat in : of malice in the legal sense, le word “opponent” would een safer to use, the Judge that the word “enemy” did nscend the bounds of fair urther found that the firm ikwoldt and Co., with which mant is associated as man nd agent, has no trading authorising it to carry on in i Samoa. Therefore, in re )f the second part of the e, the defence of justification i, while for the first part the fair comment succeeds and nt must go for both de ls.