LIBEL CASE-DENNISTON V. THE “OTAGO DAILY TIMES.”

Ashburton Guardian, Volume IV, Issue 1084, 26 October 1883, Page 2

LIBEL CASE-DENNISTON V. THE “OTAGO DAILY TIMES.”

The libel case, Denniston v. the Otago Daily Times and Witness Company, was heard before Judge Williams and a special jury yesterday. The plaintiff claimed >6OO damages for libel contained in “Passing Notes,” published on September 15th, over the signature of “ Civis,” in which it is stated that “ Mr Denniston was actuated by strange fits, for which he was surely irresponsible. In his appearance as solicitor in the lower Courts he could not help snapping at the Resident Magistrate or his fellow counsel. His attacks were pure frenzy; and just aa a mad dog snaps at whatever comes in its way, so did Mr Denniston. He was the subject or victim of a kind of intellectual rabies.” The defendants pleaded in effect that these were comments justified not only by, Mr Denniston’s conduct in the particular Court case which gave rise to the “ Passing Note,” but in other Cases previously in which his conduct had been of a similar character. For the prosecution the only evidence adduced (the publicacation of the article being admitted) was that of Mr Gordon, Registrar of the Supreme Court, who proved that Mr Denniston was on the roll of barristers, and that he believed the article to refer to him.—For the defence : The first wit- ; ness was a solicitor named Mr McDonald, with whom Mr Denniston had a scene .in. Court upon which the article was founded. He stated amongst other evidence that on one occasion he had called Mr Denniston hia “ learned friend,” but Mr Denniston said he regarded that as sq insult. Witness proceeded ; I called him “ ha ” and he objected to being called “ he.”_ I then said that I would call him “ she,” but he would not have that. ,J offered to call him “my learned friend,” but he would not bo so called, and finally I called him “ Mr Denniston.” He did not seem much pleased then.—The other evidence was given by various reporters, who gave evidence aa to scenes at various times in which Mr Denniston had hesn concerned. The reiding of these frequently caused laughter, as -in -some .cases the alternation had taken place with Mr'Stout, who now appeared on behalf of Mr Denniston. —ln cross-examination of the reporters of the Daily Times, questions were sought to be put by Mr Stout with a view of eliciting who was the writer of the “ Passing Note” in connection with this point. The Judge ruled that if a witness was asked if he wrote any particular “Passing Note,” which might be said to be libellous, he would consider it hia duty to protest the witness and tell him that he was privi - leged, as he might criminate himself. The direct question, “ Who wrote' the ‘ Passing Note V ” being put . by Mr Stout to the Times’ sub editor, a lo ig a-gument occurred. The Judge held it to be assumed to be law (though he knew of no case in which it had been directly decided) that if the publisher or proprietor of a newspaper elected to take the responsibility of a letter or contribution the writer need not be divulged, even if it were intended to be shown that such writer had been actuated by malice. He disallowed the question therefore. The case was proceeding to-day.