ALLEGED CRIMINAL LIBEL.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVI, Issue 44, 21 February 1905, Page 3

ALLEGED CRIMINAL LIBEL.

APPLICATION to PROSECUTE.

Tl^ S J\^ h ? f * George Horace Mr bStsS Auckland Deeds Office. Sv afWn m the PoUce Court y««terlt*L>i- neoMsaiy to secure a stipendiary magistrate's permission ben°7 "** au acti ™ for crim- ™ n TitP «»™PWnant had raado au affidavit thai the whole of the jourMis printing plant had been made over by bill, of ,ale f rom the defendant to hia wife. Thus they would have no ••banco of securing- damages u-runst him it awarded. The libel' coraphiinecl of appeared on January 20th. when a paragraph opp P arerl which injured his credit by n statement that he hod been frequently pressed by his creditors ami that he had paid a "few bob"' to them in bankruptcy proceeding. \g a matter of fart, Mr Bart.-n %rd* ~M> Ha-.vke had paid the creditr-rs in' fuJ!. Mo??t serious of nl) . l!: v ]\>. r ; ,i-; o (hat Mr Hnwke cfV:iimvl ei<vT'il.i..i-

ages from i;h» Tramway Company ior mjunes sustained in collision between a tram and a .t.-jin roller, and that his injuries were then miraculously cured. This, said Mr Burton, would, if true, be an abominable offeree, which vvould injure his client iv the estimation of his friends and cause the Government to dispense with his services. No apolojrv had app.-a-.. ,1 in the journal, but the defer-.d.int li >d filed an affidavit that the al'.egtvi liljel appeared while he \vaa away from Aucklau'd. an 1 that it was without his knowledge or consent. He stated that during' his absence he appointed a person to manajc the newspaper, but that person's name was uot disclosed. Mr Burton quoted cases to show that the propriotor of a paper could be held criminally liable for The, acts of. his servants.

Mr Mi?Veagh, who opposed the. application on behalf of James Regan, submitted that the statements might be said to be in bad taste, but nos li-bellotis. Tn regard lo the cure" statement, the only serious one in tho article, that was not sufficient urton which to base a eharue of criru iual libel, and there could be? no criminal iutont or desire to injure, the plaintiff", because tho defendant was away when the article appeared. If the plaintiff wanted to ascertain wTio was the manager. Auckland was not a difficult place in which to find hi?n The application was brought to obtain his name, but it was nr-t his client.- ,- duly to expose him. LFe quoted judgments in KnjrlUh cases vHih the object of showing that, an editor wa.s not liable for the nr;s of a manager who -was a competent person.

Mr Wardell decided to reserve his decision so ;is to consider the legs) points raised by counsel.