VOGEL V. ROYDHOUSE

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1333, 4 September 1886, Page 2

VOGEL V. ROYDHOUSE

Wellington, Septembers. Sir Julius Vogel’s libel action against the Evening Press began at 10 a.m. A claim is laid for £ISOO damages for each of two acticles referring to what was known as " the Waimate R tit way scandal. ” The defendants’ plea is that the matter referred to in the articles set forth in the state-

ment of claim are matters of public Interest and concerns, and that the alleged libellous statements were fair comments

on ail matters therein referred to, and were published bona fide and for the public bench', without any malicious motive, and without negligence, and in the honest belief of the truth thereof. Mr Travers appeared for Sir J. Vogel, and Mr Bell for the defendants Messrs Wakefield and I Roydhou e. Chief Jus'ice Penderga was on the Bench. Mr Travels’ opening address was lengthy, and up to lunchtime only two witnesses had been examined. 1 T. McDonald gave evidence as to the impression made on him by reading the artic'-’S. Lir J. Vogel was then called 1 and answered a question or two from Mr 1 Travers, and was cross-examined till the i luncheon adjournment chiefly as tj hia j action in the House when the report of I the Committee came up, and his coni uedlon with the New Zealand Agricultural Company. I No witnesses were called for the deI fence

Mr Bell for the defence said the issue was a uoiuen'oea one, and that the action t was an attempt on the part of the Gov- t ernment to muzzle the Press The jury a would have to consider whither the c words in the article would bear the \ meaning placed upon them by the plain- t tiff He submitted they did net, and c cited several cases In supp >rt of his afgn- I ment. He dwelt at length on the ( privilege of the Press, and explained the law on the subject. It was the wildest 1 exaggeration to say that the article attriputed corrupt motives to Sir J. Vogel. He quoted from speeches made by the Premier and Major Atkinson when the I report was presented to Parliament, in I which they said the report appeared to I cast a reflection upon two members of the I House, viz., the Colonial Treasurer and the member for Waimate, Tnoj action had been brought not to fill the pockets of Sir Jnlins Vogel, bat for the purpose of crushing a paper struggling for exigence ; and, also, to gag the opposition 1 press He failed to see, on the facts I which had been adduced, that a verdict could be returned for pl»int : ff. The Chief Justice, in summing np, said it was for the jury to say whether imI proper motives bad been imputed. It I was not always the direct language that was n»ed that was the sting of an article bat generally language used in an indirect manner, and the plaintiff contended that the latter part of the article suggested that the Colonial Treasurer nceived a a portion of the commission. The article said it was not clear who got the money : and if the writer conveys that meaning I to ordinary readers, what dcei i; mean 1 and who participated in this commission? • It was clear that Mr Steward received . the whole of the commission, and he had > denied that anyone shsred It with him i What could the imputation mean I That i was a question the jury would have to

decide. After an hour’s deliberation, the jury returned with a verdict for defendant. Costs were allowed on the highest scale.