Truth (N.Z.) Ltd. v. Avery
New Zealand Court of Appeal
[1959] NZLR 284
- Written by Mary Phelan D'Isa, JD
Facts
An article appeared in the New Zealand Truth (publisher) (defendant) that was critical of an employee of the Wellington Society for the Prevention and Cruelty to Animals (plaintiff). The article accused the employee of cruelty when the employee shot a dog that was annoying two goats. The article specifically alleged the employee shot the dog in the stomach from 300 yards and left the dog to suffer for 15 minutes while he drove to another location where he was able to kill the dog after firing several more shots. The article described the hillside where the dog died as looking like a slaughter yard covered in blood. The employee sued for libel. The publisher asserted the whole of the words published were true and, in the alternative, the words were covered by the fair-comment defense. The trial judge instructed the jury to decide whether the statements of fact had been justified and whether the comments had also been justified and to have regard for the evidence relied on to support the truth of the comments. The trial judge also left the question whether the hillside words were statements of fact or comment but told the jury that the judge would not regard them as comment. The jury returned a verdict for the employee, and the publisher appealed after the trial judge denied the publisher’s motion for a new trial.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (North, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
